The Christology of the earliest gospel [microform]

Clbc

libraries

I

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE
EARLIEST GOSPEL

'> J * .,*'*0

THE CHRIS1F0LOGY i OF
THE

BY

J. LOGAN AYRE, B.D., PH.D.

LONDON
JAMES CLARKE & CO., LIMITED

9 ESSEX STREET, STRAND, W.C. 2

(LATE or 13 AND 14 FLEBT STREET, B.C.)

;; :::: .Crfta

TO

THE MEMORY OF A SAINTED FATHER

WHO FIRST TAUGHT ME
TO READ THE NEW TESTAMENT

Printed in Great Britain

729968

PREFACE

IT is perhaps not easy to write anything very new
or original regarding the Synoptic problem ; indeed,
very few fresh avenues of thought have been left un-
explored so far as the New Testament is concerned.
It is not the object of the following work to be
specially concerned with critical questions, and as a
matter of fact these have only been introduced where
it seemed necessary to do so for the advancement of
the main theme of the book. The line of study is
rather of an historical character, and the chief
desire has been to present a portrait of our Lord as
He is shown so vividly at work in the Gospel accord-
ing to St. Mark. There are many excellent books
setting forth in considerable detail the life of Christ,
but not many with the distinct object of focussing
the mind of the reader upon the presentation of Him
given in a particular Gospel; it seemed, therefore,
as if there was still room for such a work as the
following. It probably will be admitted that to
gain the first impressions Jesus made upon those
with whom He came earliest into contact would
be worth a great deal of trouble and research. To
trace the development of the Messianic conceptions
and the awakening of the faith of the disciples will
be found a work of great interest. In most debatable
questions the author has inclined to the conservative
side ; he felt constrained to do this partly because
his inclinations lay in that direction, but more
especially because he desired to be faithful to the

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

simple story which the Gospel seems to tell. This
story must be regarded as of exceeding importance
to Christian people, for if the connection of St.
Peter with it has been established, and we think
it has, then many perhaps most of the things it
records rest on his authority as an eyewitness. It is
impressive to reflect that while the Gospel according
to St. Mark was at first regarded with disfavour and
considerably neglected, it has at last come into its
own. Perhaps some credit for that is due to modern
criticism.

Acknowledgment has been made in the body of the
work where quotations have been used, but especial
thanks are due to those teachers and professors under
whose supervision the author has studied the New
Testament. Mention is particularly made of the late
Rev. Prof. R. H. F. Dickey, D.D., Londonderry;
the late Rev. Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D., New College,
Edinburgh ; and of the Rev. Prof. H. A. A. Kennedy,
D.Sc., of the same college. But still .more special
acknowledgment ought to be made of the author's
indebtedness to the Rev. Prof. W. A. Curtis, D.D.,
D.Litt., of Edinburgh University. It was his
privilege to attend some of Prof. Curtis' post-
graduate classes when the subject of study was the
earliest Gospel ; and from these lectures and dis-
cussions as well as from private advice much benefit
was derived. In the hope that those who read the
following pages may be as much helped and
stimulated as the author has been in writing them,
this book is submitted to the public.

J. LOGAN AYRE.

THE MANSE, PRESTONPANS,
July 1924.

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

I. THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL ... 9

II. PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES DISCOVERABLE . 31

III. EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS ... 63

IV. PREPARING FOR THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM . 89
V. PARABLES AND PREACHING ..... 106

VI. JESUS AND THE MlRACLES . . . . . 126

VII. CHRISTOLOGICAL INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES 169

VIII. MESSIANIC IDEALS ....... 202

IX. " THOU ART THE CHRIST "..... 219

X. THE TRANSFIGURATION ...... 234

XI. JESUS AS A REFORMER ...... 247

XII. DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING . . . 270

XIII. THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS . . . 290

XIV. WANING AND WAXING FAITH 303

XV. " Go YE INTO ALL THE WORLD " . . . . 322

339

THE GHRISTOLOGY OF
THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

CHAPTER I

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

IT is quite probable that one of the results of the
Renaissance in the fifteenth century was a quickened
interest in religious art in addition to the revived
and widespread enthusiasm for other branches of
learning. This will explain the fresh devotion to
the painting of religious subjects which we find to
have been one of the marked activities of the art
of the sixteenth century. Of course something may
have been due also to the influence of the Humanistic
atmosphere of that period, as well as to the Reforma-
tion movement at the beginning of the latter century.
There is no doubt that this movement, although
it aroused exceedingly bitter feelings, drew men's
thoughts directly to the great subjects of religion,
and stimulated a new interest in them. Whatever
the cause, however, the result has been to provide
abundant and interesting pictures of the " Man
Jesus of Nazareth." A study of some of them will
show that while there are certain differences in form
and expression, there are still even more evident and
striking resemblances. This is indeed so noticeable
that we never have any difficulty in picking out
the form of Jesus from among His companions and

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

followers, and it would be no exaggeration to state
that His likeness has become so stereotyped that lie
would be a bold artist who would now dare to alter
it. But how has the original conception of the figure
and form of our Lord arisen ; and is there anything
reliable or accurate in that presentation of Him so
familiar in the present day ? As we do not feel
inclined to place much reliance on the Veronica tale,
so, possibly, we have no satisfactory answer to offer to
these questions. Perhaps the similarities point back
to a common original, the painter of which we
cannot discover, nor do we know the date of its
production. The differences will indicate the
peculiar ideas and conceptions of each individual
artist who has endeavoured to put upon canvas the
thoughts, ideals, and inspirations of the Christ that
have come to him. There seems to be something
analogous in the realm of Christian literature to
what we have just found in that of Christian art.
The Gospels present us with portraits of Jesus,
painted in words, and while there are differences
in the detailed working out of these pictures, each
separate photograph, if we may use that word,
possesses properties and merits peculiar to itself.
Yet there is such a unification of idea, of conception
and presentation ; there are, in fact, such manifest
resemblances as lead us to believe the various artists
were inspired by, or at least received help from, some
common original. And the analogy holds good still
further, for we do not know who was the author of
this original, nor when or where it was produced.
We believe the evidence and the circumstances of
the situation, when investigated, point inevitably to
the conclusion that it did exist before any of the

10

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

word-paintings of the Christ that we now possess.
In the study that we are now to enter upon, we shall
be engaged with that presentation of Jesus to be
found in the earliest Gospel. We are, in fact, to
endeavour to appraise at its proper value the picture
there painted, and to give particular attention to
those special and peculiar contributions to the
subject found in this Gospel. We believe the author
had a purpose before him in the composition of his
work. We shall endeavour to find out what this was,
not suggesting for a moment that we are exhausting
his plan in the inquiry we have now taken in hand.
We shall be content if we can concisely, vividly, and
accurately gather together and set forth as a related
whole those words, deeds, incidents, and circum-
stances that appear to have influenced the develop-
ment of the Messianic idea which we believe runs
through the Gospel narrative.

Our subject can very obviously be divided into
two main lines of inquiry : (i) to ascertain which is
the earliest Gospel ; (2) to discover and set forth as
plainly as possible the Christological teaching of that
Gospel. These two lines, viewed from one aspect,
are distinct and separate, yet they are not entirely
independent. It is quite evident we must be assured
of the one, before we are in a position even to proceed
with the other. The whole inquiry is of supreme
importance and great interest, for when we have
discovered the earliest Gospel, and have ascertained
its teaching concerning Christ, we may therein find
the earliest portrait, painted in words, of Jesus as He
appeared to the first of those writers who have
narrated His story in the Gospels. We do not,
however, imagine there will be the same necessity

ii

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

for dwelling at length upon the first section of our
subject as upon the second. It cannot be forgotten,
even for a moment, that there is on the whole
considerable agreement among scholars as to which
is the primal Gospel. Still, for various reasons that
will be mentioned in detail as we proceed in the
discussion of our subject, it will be necessary to give
a short resume of the evidence which leads us to
believe that St. Mark's is the earliest of our Gospels
in their present form. It is not, however, to be
inferred that in doing so there is even a suggestion
that we have anything quite new or original to
contribute, but this method appears more effective
and seems to lead to more completeness in the
treatment of the main subject. There is hardly
any part of the Synoptic problem that has been left
uninvestigated, and that it still remains a problem
is not due to lack of attention ; even as late as the
autumn of 1920, as we shall discover presently, a
new attempt was made towards the solution, which
was possibly no more successful than many that had
gone before. Our object, however, is not to attempt
what seems the impossible, but to endeavour to
refresh our minds, in the first instance, with the con-
siderations that have led scholars to conclude that
the second Gospel, according to the order in the
New Testament, was really the first that was written,
and to some extent is the basis of certain of the others
which succeeded it.

The most casual reader of the New Testament
must readily observe that the Gospels can be very
effectively arranged into two distinct divisions. In
the first we place Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and
in the second, the Gospel by St. John stands alone.

12

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

The subject-matter of the latter, its arrangement,
the difference in its presentation of Jesus, gives it
a place distinct from the others. It is generally
agreed that it was written much later than those in
the first division and if St. John was the writer, it
must have been composed by him when he was a
very old man. Some scholars place it considerably
later than Apostolic times, and, of course, do not
regard St. John as its author. Prof. Bacon in-
sists that it belongs to what he calls the Pauline
School, and his favourite designation for it is the
" Ephesian Gospel." We may at once place it aside
as not being the earliest, although it was very early
regarded as one of the most important of the Gospels.

In considering the elements that form the first
division, viz. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we are at
once impressed with the similarities that are found
in these writings. Whole sections and paragraphs
run along the same lines, and identical words in
the same connection are used by each of these
writers ; even particular and peculiar words and
phrases are employed by them with precisely the
same meaning. The following are a few of the
examples, and these might be very greatly enlarged.

Mark 1 2 -8 corresponds with Matt. 3 1 - 6 ; Mark I 16 " 20
with Matt. 4 18 -22. Mark I 21 ' 28 with Luke A 31 ' 37 ;
Mark I 29 ' 3 * with Matt. 8 1 *" 16 and Luke 4 3 * 41 . It
will be observed that these resemblances have been
taken from the first chapter of St. Mark only, but
the same condition prevails throughout the greater
part of the Gospel. Now, obviously the question
will at once arise :

How are these similarities in the Gospels to be
explained?

13

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

1 i) Our grandfathers would have perhaps answered
that they were entirety due to the work of inspiration,
and that is the reply which might be given by a few
people still. As the writers of the three Gospels
were all inspired by the same Spirit, and wrote under
that Spirit's guidance, it quite follows as the thing
to be expected that they would treat the same
subject in a similar way, and use even identical words
in narrating the incidents recorded by them. But
would this theory, and the conception of inspiration
which underlies it, not require even more striking
resemblances than those we possess ? It would,
in fact, necessitate absolute identity in thought and
word; and our threefold Gospel-cord would thus
be broken, and we should only possess a single strand.
This explanation would not leave any room for the
differences in the Gospels, and these are quite as
impressive and as difficult to explain as their re-
semblances. We need only recall the first chapter
in each of the Gospels to realise the exact situation
in that respect.

(2) The further answer may be given that the
similarity is no more than what the subjects treated
in the Gospels might lead us to expect. It must not
be forgotten that the writers are, for the most part,
dealing with moral and religious material, and in
connection with this there were many fixed forms,
phrases, and expressions which would come readily
to these writers. In any case, .they are engaged
narrating the story of the life of Jesus. This required
in turn that they should deal generally with the
same occurrences. It is also to be kept in mind
that much of their information was not obtained
at first hand, but from other persons who may or

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

may not have seen the various events taking place.
These narrators were likely to become stereotyped
in language through the frequent rehearsing of the
same stories, and thus it may have been that the
writers of the Synoptic Gospels, more or less un-
consciously, reproduced the language of those who
supplied them with details. Indeed, even in the
circumstances a certain amount of similarity was
to be expected, because the Evangelists were record-
ing particulars of historical events and simple facts,
which necessarily would tempt them to drop into a
literary groove.

It may be said in a sentence that this will not
adequately account either for the resemblances or
the differences. Again, we need only appeal to
the beginning of each of the three Gospels, or to
the various divergences in the story, say of the
transfiguration, or that of the resurrection of Jesus,
to see that this theory is entirely inadequate to
explain the phenomena.

(3) It will now be quite evident that any solution
that is offered must be capable of accounting for
both the striking harmony as well as the impressive
discords found in the Gospel story. Several such
theories have been offered ; but two are still holding
the field, and around these two as standards many
a literary battle has been waged. There are a
number of scholars, some of them of very considerable
repute, who maintain that behind the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which because of their
likeness have been called the Synoptic Gospels,
there is a large body of fixed tradition ; that the
story of the life of Jesus was often told in the
meeting of the Christians, and that even the children

15

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

and catechumens were trained up to commit verbally
to memory, and to repeat accurately, large sections
of this story, and so in this way, eventually, the
greater part of the narrative of the life of Jesus
received a fixed form, and hence we have the agree-
ments referred to already. For the differences it is
explained that the handing on of this oral tradition
from one place to another, and its passing from die
generation to another, would provide a way for
variety of expression to creep in. For example,
a story of some event as told at Jerusalem might
differ somewhat when it was told at Antioch ; and
a tale as related in A.D. 35 might be changed slightly
in the version as narrated in A.D. 45.

Opposition has been offered to this theory by
many other scholars quite as eminent as those who
advocate it ; and, again, the ground of objection is
its inadequacy to explain fully the phenomena.
Obviously it will not account for the general simi-
larity in the order of the narrative, nor for the use
of particular words and phrases. Salmon refers tp
an instance of a parenthesis being preserved in all
three Gospels (Introduction to N.T., pp. 121 f.) ; this
theory will not explain such an agreement as that.
But apart from the other objections that have been
urged against it, does it not appear self-contradictory?
On the one hand, in explanation of the similarities
in the Gospels, it contends for a fixed form of oral
tradition that amounts almost to a written docu-
ment in its rigidity. On the other, it suggests in
explanation of the differences, that this fixedness
was not so unyielding as not to permit of modi-
fications by time, place, or circumstance. There
may have been such elasticity as is here suggested,

16

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

but as a solution of the problem we can hardly
regard this as scientifically reliable. Who is to
measure the amount of modification in any story
that may have taken place ? Might not memory
often fail ? At this point we shall not discuss this
theory further, but may require to return to it
later.

{(4) The other method of solution that holds the
field of thought, to a very considerable extent,
in regard to this subject is that which is known
as the documentary theory. Those who accept it
believe that behind our present Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke there were other writings earlier
than these, which have been used by the authors
of our Gospels in the compositions which bear their
names. They are satisfied that this alone will
explain the identity of language and the similarity
of order in the record of the events found in the
Synoptics. For the divergences of the Gospels
from each other, the advocates of this theory offer
the suggestion that each writer gathered information
for himself ; used up his matter as he felt best suited
his purpose ; even, sometimes, departed from the
material that was before him ; and indeed, that the
author of one of the Gospels had no hesitation
whatever to copy from another. It was not really
a case of copying in the ordinary sense, because it was
legitimate for these writers to obtain truth wherever
it was to be found. Now, it is quite clear that this
method most fully accounts for the phenomena which
the Synoptic Gospels present. It may raise diffi-
culties of its own, but it cannot be denied that
it offers a very reasonable and, perhaps, we
may add, natural explanation of resemblances and

17 2

V

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

disagreements amongst the three Gospels. In any
case, both these theories which we have just referred
to make it plain that no one of our present Gospels
can be strictly regarded as the earliest, for whether
it was a verbal or written source, there was something
earlier than any of the three as we now know them.

Those who maintain this last theory are agreed that
the writers of our three Gospels are in a measure
indebted to one another ; or rather that certain
of them are indebted to the others. Although for
long it was disregarded and neglected, it is now
generally accepted that St. Mark's Gospel is older
than either St. Matthew's or St. Luke's, and that
these latter quote from the former.

If, then, it is so that the authors of our present
Gospels took advantage of earlier written records
in the production of their work, it is our business to
inquire what these were, so that we may ascertain,
if it be possible to do so, which really is the earliest
Gospel. Most scholars believe in a common original
used by the Synoptic writers which has obtained
the familiar designation of" Q "the first letter of
" Quelle"= source. We have the feeling, however,
that Q is a very elusive document, and many very
able scholars have denied its existence altogether.
These, of course, belong almost entirely to the oral
tradition school already referred to. Probably it
would be correct to affirm that the leader of this
school is Dr. Arthur Wright, Vice-President of
Queens' College, Cambridge, the author of many
valuable books on various aspects of the subject
A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 'The Composition
of the Four Gospels, The Gospel according to St. Luke, .
being some of them. He is an unbending opponent

18

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

of the documentary theory, and a most energetic
and able advocate and exponent of the cause he has
espoused. Dr. Bartlet of Oxford, lecturing recently
(1920) on the " Synoptic problem," said he had
worked twenty years with Q as a working hypothesis,
but had now rejected the idea altogether in favour
of oral tradition. He further made the somewhat
uncommon statement that the reference in Luke's
preface does not necessarily refer to written Gospels.
He states : " Luke gives no suggestion of any written
Gospel, far less of one of apostolic authorship. His
statement may be only referred to traditions."
Dr. Bartlet now appears to believe there never was
a written Q, and that the three Synoptic writers
borrowed from a common body of tradition which
we may call X. His strongest reason for not accept-
ing the existence of a common original document is
because it virtually was another Gospel, and as it must
have been of apostolic origin, it was inconceivable
that it could have disappeared so completely with-
out leaving a single trace behind it. Dr. Wright is
also emphatic on that point. In the Introduction
to his Synopsis he says : " If two such documents
not merely existed but were so widely circulated that
three Evangelists working in different churches pos-
sessed a copy of the first, and two or as some say
three of the second, it is impossible that these
pristine documents should have so completely
perished that there is no mention of them in the
Church Fathers."

As we are, for the moment, in search of a Gospel,
or Gospels, that may be earlier than those we now
possess, we are of course bound to examine this
argument. Dr. Wright and Dr. Bartlet, and those

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

who agree with them, say there are no such Gospels,
never were any such, for it is impossible in their
view that they could have so utterly perished as
seems to have been the case. This is one of the
favourite arguments against the documentary theory,
but is it a sufficient ground for disbelief in the
existence of documents earlier than our present
Gospels ? The answer must undoubtedly be no.
It presumes to know what these documents were
like,* and one feels that the presupposition under-
lying the argument is that they were such Gospels
as those familiar to us in the New Testament. But
it is doubtful if anyone would maintain Q was such
a complete and perfect work as even the smallest
of these. There is also another assumption here
which we are unable- to accept, viz. that these
" pristine documents " have completely perished.
There is no reason to suppose anything of the kind.
The fact is, the exact opposite is more likely to be
correct they have been preserved in a large work,
viz. the Synoptic Gospels. The principal contents
of Q, or any other documents that may have been
employed as a foundation for our present Gospels,
would be worked up into these by the writers,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke^ according as each found
the material suitable for his purpose, and practically
all such material would be incorporated in the more
formal works familiar to us. There would then be
no need to preserve the original and less formal
documents as a distinct collection. When one has
incorporated the plan of a book one intends to write
in the book itself, and used up the material collected
in its production, there is no further necessity to
retain carefully the plan or the sheaf of loose notes

20

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

we may have gathered together. These have served
their purpose and are no longer of value. This seems
to have been the case with these "pristine docu-
ments -" underlying the Synoptic narrative ; when
their main contents, perhaps indeed all that they
recorded, were incorporated in the Gospel story,
there was no reason for their further preservation
as separate documents. We might, indeed, even
suggest that they would speedily be literally driven
off the literary field by the fuller and more complete
work of the Evangelists. Their disappearance,
however, is an assurance to us that the information
and truth they possessed were preserved in the
manner indicated above, otherwise, if anything
essential had been omitted, we think they would not
have been entirely lost. In this view of the matter
it is doubtful whether it is justifiable to speak of
them as having " completely perished."

Dr. Wright has, we think, overladen his oral
tradition theory too heavily with his hypothesis
of a proto, deutro, and trito Mark. One wonders
what difference there was between his supposed
proto-Mark and Q ! He also asserts that " St.
Paul appears to know nothing of written Gospels."
It is difficult to be certain one way or another on
that point; still, it is surely a fair inference from
I Gor. I3 2 , "though I have all faith so that I could
remove mountains," etc., that he may have known of
Matt. 172 or 2i 21 ; or even Mark 9 23 and Luke if.
Bo not i Cor. n 23 and Acts 2O 35 suggest that St.
Paul had a source of information which we cannot
now trace ? But as Salmon points out in his
Introduction to the New Testament, when the oral
tradition theory is pushed to its final position,

21

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

it presumes such a fixity of narrative in the material
of the Gospel story as fairly amounts to a written
document. He says : " If we are willing to believe
that the memory of the first disciples, unspoiled by
the habit of writing and stimulated by the surpassing
interest of the subject, retained what was entrusted
to it as tenaciously and as faithfully as a written
record, then the hypothesis that a story has been
preserved by memory stands on the same level as the
hypothesis that it had been preserved on papyrus
or parchment. ... In either case we acknowledge
that the tradition had assumed the fixity of a written
record."

We must now turn for a moment to Dr. Bartlet's
statement, mentioned above, to the effect that St.
Luke's preface " gives no suggestion of any written
Gospel, far less one of apostolic authorship." As
against this we find Plummer in his commentary on
this Gospel (" International Critical Series") stating:
" This prologue contains all we really know respecting
the composition of early narratives of the Life of
Christ, and it is the test by which theories as to the
origin of our Gospels must be judged. No hypo-
thesis is likely to be right which does not harmonise
with what is told us here. Moreover, it shows us
that an inspired writer felt he was bound to use
research and care in order to secure accuracy."

Writing on the word TroXXoi, verse I, he further
affirms : " The context seems to imply that these,
like Luke, were not eyewitnesses. That at once
would exclude Matthew, whose Gospel Luke did not
appear to have known. It is doubtful whether Mark
is included in the iroXXot. The writers of extant
apocryphal Gospels cannot be meant, for these are

22

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

all of later origin. Probably all the documents here
alluded to were driven out of existence by the
manifest superiority of our four canonical Gospels."
Dr. Wright's paragraph V. (p. xviii) on St. Luke's
preface does not, of course, agree with Plummer.
There seems to be some confusion here. Who are
the predecessors in writing whom St. Luke hopes
to excel ? Certainly this preface is a difficult
problem to solve for those who believe that our
present Gospels had only an oral foundation. A
fair and reasonable interpretation would evidently
require us to understand that St. Luke was aware of
other written Gospels, which were even in circula-
tion, and which he himself very probably used in the
composition of his own.

We are therefore, by the circumstances of the
case, and by the evidence forthcoming, forced to
conclude that there must have been a written source
or sources of our present Gospels. The questions we
must now put to ourselves are> How many were there,
and what were they like ? And if these could be
satisfactorily answered, the Synoptic problem would
have largely disappeared from the realm of inquiry.
St. Luke, clearly, is familiar with a number of written
documents ; whether these, or any of them, attained
to the rank that we demand in a Gospel, it is of
course impossible to say. It seems safe to affirm
that there were several documents, at any rate, of a
more important character than the others. It is,
moreover, quite justifiable to suppose that there was,
in the period when our present Gospels were pro-
duced, a good deal of written material available.
We know as a matter of history that letter- writing
was a comparatively common custom in those days,

23

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

and that it was practised among the Jews who were
scattered over the four quarters of the world. It
is reasonable to believe that those who were abroad
kept in touch with their friends in Jerusalem, or
in other parts of Palestine. When St. Paul was
explaining his case to his Jewish brethren at Rome,
they answered : " We neither received letters out ; of
Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren
that came shewed or spake any harm of thee "
(Acts 28 21 ). May this not point to a practice that
was somewhat common ? To write letters on
matters of importance we know, from St. Paul's
Epistles, was quite usual. Is it conceivable, then,
that Jesus of Nazareth should have lived such a life
as the Gospels reveal, and yet nobody would think
of writing to a friend at a distance, telling something
of the wonderful occurrences ? Would there be no
letters passing from Galilee to Jerusalem while He
was actively engaged in His labours in the former
place ? The narrative itself reveals that communica-
tion was carried on between the rulers at Jerusalem
and their agents in the provinces respecting the
work of Jesus. Is it likely this was all verbal ? When
He and His disciples left their native quarters, is it
to be supposed that they would be cut off from
all communications until they had returned again,
or that they were absolutely confined to messages
by word of mouth ? It would be very unusual if
that had been the case. The probabilities appear
to point all the other way, and it certainly seems
likely that written communications respecting Jesus
and His work would be accumulating even during His
lifetime. We cannot now, of course, prove that
such was the case; we can only point out its

24

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

probability. These letters, in the majority of cases,
would be passing among friends, and some of them
might possibly be available when the earliest Gospels
were being compiled; and so through this source
some of the very stories recorded in the Synoptics
may have been obtained, and in this view they would,
practically be a record of passing events. Our
point is, that written communications regarding
Jesus and His work were extremely likely to have
taken place, and it was not at all probable that these
immediately perished. Increasingly as the life of
Jesus got to be understood, and still more particularly
after His death and resurrection, we may be sure
every item of information would be sought after
most carefully, and treasured up as something of
great value. This itself would facilitate the forma-
tion of larger and more connected collections of the
sayings and doings of Jesus, but at what point in
this process the documents upon which our Gospels
rest received fixed form is not easy to determine.

It must appear evident from what has been already
stated that the documentary theorynot only accounts
most satisfactorily for the peculiar problem that our
first three Gospels present, but that it is strongly
reinforced by the probabilities which a consideration
of the historical circumstances suggest; it is now
necessary that we should, if possible, get into more
direct contact with the source from which some of
the material in our Gospels was taken ; that is to
say, that we should endeavour to discover what Q
really is. It has been already remarked that it
appears to be rather an elusive document, and faith
in its existence has been shaken possibly by this
very fact. It is doubtful whether there is absolute

25

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

agreement among scholars as to the proper contents
ofQ.

(a) This document is considered by some to con-
tain a collection of the " sayings of Jesus " only. It
is doubtful, however, if that view is maintained so
rigorously in recent years as it was formerly.

() Salmon in The Human Element in the Gospel
devotes, necessarily, some attention to this subject,
and we cannot do better, perhaps, than give the
following quotations as reflecting his mind on this
point:

" The verbal coincidences between the accounts
given by St. Matthew and by St. Luke, both of the
Baptist's teaching and of our Lord's temptation in
the wilderness, leave no room for doubt that these
two Evangelists have used a common authority,
which I here provisionally call Q " (p. 33).

Again, " I find it convenient then, if I use the
letter P to denote the common authority used in
sections which all three Synoptists have in common,
to use the letter Q to denote the common authority
of the sections common to Matthew and Luke "
(p. 24).

On p. 41 he discusses the question, Was Q used
by St. Mark as well as St. Matthew and St. Luke ?
He answers in the following terms :

" In favour of the affirmative answer is the verbal
agreement between St. Mark and Q, not only in
the verse now under consideration (Mark I 3 ), but in
other verses in the section concerning the Baptist.
If we hold that St. Matthew used Q, we cannot
reasonably deny that St. Mark drew from Q his
description of John's food and raiment."

We shall return later to the question whether or

26

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

not St. Mark uses Q, but it will be enough to observe
here that Dr. Salmon does not lay very great stress
upon his system of notation. These quotations,
however, as well as references on pp. 57 and 58,
make it evident that he supposed Q to contain
narrative as well as the sayings of Jesus.

(c) Probably Harnack and Stanton give us the
best idea of what may have been the contents of Q,
and in a general way we may say it is their opinion
that it was largely a collection of the sayings of Jesus,
with only sufficient narrative material to give these
sayings a proper setting. It is not necessary here
to reproduce the list of passages that these two
eminent scholars agree upon as representing this
original document ; we are only concerned with its
general character. It is, however, obvious that at
this distant date no one can affirm positively and
exactly what its precise contents were. We hope
it is clear that it had some substantial existence,
and that it is not the creation of modern scholars
begotten out of the difficulties incident to the
Synoptic problem. We have seen above that there is
strong presumption, amounting almost to certainty,
that our Gospels rely for at least some of their
material upon sources earlier than themselves ;
and even if these sources were oral, Q will still be a
necessary symbol to represent them.

(d) Fresh light has recently been thrown upon
this matter by the suggestion that Q is very probably
the outcome, if not the very framework, of the
" manual for preaching " that in all likelihood the
early disciples and Evangelists employed. When
they were sent forth to preach, it is believed there
must have been some instruction given to them

27

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

concerning the subject-matter of their preaching.
It is, of course, extremely improbable that they were
occupied entirely with passages from the Old
Testament Scriptures. There was no lack of -such-
teaching among the Jews. Besides, as we know
from the Gospels themselves, much of the Old
Testament writings required a fresh interpretation.
Jesus shows us this in the Sermon on the Mount
It is hardly supposable, then, that He would allow
His preachers, who found it so difficult to understand
these Scriptures themselves, to explain and interpret
them to others without any assistance. On the other
side, it is just as probable that they neither felt
competent, nor had they the desire, to enter upon
this evangelistic work without adequate instruction.
They must have realised, as they listened to Jesus,
that a new and more perfect Light had come into
the world. Like many others, they would marvel
as He unfolded views and thoughts out of the law
and the prophets which had remained hitherto
in complete obscurity. Perhaps some of the most
ardent, among whom we might expect Peter, would
note down the points of the new teaching. Many of
the more striking utterances of Jesus could for a
time be retained in the memory, but as these must
have been increasing daily as He engaged more and
more actively in the work of His ministry, the
necessity for recording such utterances became
pressing. In this connection, and in support of the
supposition that such manuals for preachers were
early in existence, it is interesting to study the
contents of the tenth chapter of St. Matthew,
wherein Jesus gives instructions to the disciples
concerning the missionary labours upon which they

28

THE ORIGIN OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

are about to enter. Preaching, quite evidently,
was to be their supreme work. That is clear also
from the example of Jesus. It is likewise evident
from the apostolic commission recorded in the con-
cluding verses of the first Gospel, " Go ye, therefore,
and teach all nations," etc. ; St. Mark i6 15 , " Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature." Now, it is rather extraordinary to find
that in the tendi chapter of St. Matthew, Jesus
occupies many verses in forewarning the disciples
as to their experiences, and some of the probable
results of their labours, but only one verse regarding
the contents of their preaching " And as ye go,
preach, saying, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
It is, of course, possible in this chapter, as elsewhere,
St. Matthew gathers together a quantity of material
that may have been spoken under different circum-
stances and have had quite another purpose at the
time of speaking, than that which he imports into it ;
but still the fact remains, one phrase only has been
given in instructing the disciples concerning the chief
part of the enterprise upon which they were now
embarking. They were to take up precisely the
message of John the Baptist, and of Jesus Himself
" Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
Admittedly, we have little exact information to go
upon, but would this be likely to represent the real
state of affairs between Jesus and His disciples at this
period ? There can hardly be a doubt of their
having received special instructions for this work.
It may have been all retained in the memory, cer-
tainly, but, then, some of it may have been reduced
to writing. There are assuredly, therefore, many
probabilities in favour of the existence of the

29

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

" preachers' manuals " which some scholars now
believe came into practical use about this time.
These " manuals " would contain some of the
striking sayings of Jesus, mostly about the Kingdom,
and more or less general information as to the line
the disciples were to pursue in their preaching.
Their existence would obviously preclude the
necessity for any further detailed instructions regard-
ing this particular work. These "preachers'
manuals," or " notes," it is believed by certain
scholars, were the very earliest form in which Q
existed. It is clear in the circumstances there must
have been several of them, and one sees no reason
for believing that the contents of each of them were
necessarily identical. The preachers would, no
doubt, gradually add material to them from time
to time ; and this, we may suppose, would be of a
didactic character rather than narrative ; so that
along this line of inquiry we find, what we have
otherwise discovered already, that Q chiefly con-
sisted of the sayings and teaching of Jesus.

30

CHAPTER II

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES DISCOVERABLE

WE have endeavoured to obtain as reliable informa-
tion as possible concerning Q, because we wish, if
possible, to ascertain whether Mark is to any extent
dependent upon this source in the composition of
his Gospel, as Salmon seems to believe. It is
manifest that Q and the Gospel of Mark are as unlike
each other as it is possible for two such documents
to be. They are in one respect the opposites each
of the other. The Gospel is full of narrative ; the
document abounds in teaching. In another view
they are the complements one of the other, for what
is lacking in the Gospel is present in Q, and what is
wanting in it is abundantly supplied in the Gospel.
One wonders whether the distinctive character of
these two early Christian documents was accidental ?
Is it not possible that the prominent features of the
one may have had a very decided influence upon
the mould into which the other was cast? A
collection of the " sayings of Jesus " regarded as
authoritative would in itself require a record of His
doings, et vice versa. Assuming the existence of
the "preachers' manuals," and that their develop-
ment was such as is indicated above, it would be
exceedingly helpful if we could approximately affix

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

a date wlien they were finally collected into one
definite and complete volume, such, as Q is generally
believed to have been. There does not, meanwhile,
appear to be sufficient data to enable that to be done
with any degree of certainty. If it were possible,
it might help us to determine whether the final
collection of the distinctive sayings of Jesus was made
much before the earliest date to which the Gospel
of St. Mark might be assigned, and thus help us to
ascertain whether he was likely to have used it to
any considerable extent, if at all. The hypothesis
under which we assume the existence of Q requires
that it should be earlier than our Gospels in their
present form. That is certainly so in regard to
Matthew and Luke, but it is not so indisputable
in reference to Mark. We find in a study of the
contents of the first and third Gospels that the second
seems to have been used as co-equal in authority
with any other document, say Q, which was employed
by these authors. From this we may infer that
neither Mark nor Q possessed much advantage in
age one over the other, for it is to be expected that
Matthew and Luke would seek in the composition of
their Gospels for the earliest as well as the most
reliable authority. Here, various considerations
point, we believe, to the likelihood that St. Mark was
not much, if at all, indebted to Q. The character
of his Gospel indicates a source richer and fuller in
narrative material than it is supposed to have been.
In a word, there was so little that he could obtain
from it to help forward the work he had in hand,
and he had such abundance of other reliable sources,
that he appears to have been independent of Q.
Salmon points out that in all probability Mark is

32

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

indebted to this document for the description in I*
of John's raiment ; and in several places throughout
his book he indicates a belief that the Evangelist
is relying upon the document. Well, to take this
one instance as a specimen, we find it easy to suggest
another means whereby he may have obtained all
the information he required concerning John. Is
it not more likely that he would have obtained these
details from Peter or Andrew, who, according to the
first chapter of the fourth Gospel, appear to have
been disciples of the Baptist ? Besides, the figure
of the Baptist was such, and his career so impres-
sive, yet so brief, that his appearance must have
been familiar even to the children of that period.

We have asserted that the Gospel by St. Mark in
its character of a narrative of the life of Jesus points
to a source richer and fuller than Q. We now come
to inquire, What was that source ? The question is
answered in a word St. Peter. It is now generally
agreed that the basis for the narrative contained in
St. Mark's Gospel rests upon the teaching, preaching,
or particulars supplied by St. Peter to the Evangelist.
There are many references to this in the Fathers.
Dr. Morrison in his Practical Commentary traces the
Petrine tradition right back from Jerome about the
close of the fourth, to Papias at the close of the first
or early in the second century. He mentions all
the principal Fathers. It is not at all necessary
to go over this list of nine names, for it is not to be
assumed that they constitute nine different witnesses
in favour of the tradition. Many of the later
Fathers must have been only copying, or repeating
in their own language, the story as they had found it
recorded by the earlier. In view of the fact that

33 3

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the Petrine relationship to this Gospel is so generally
accepted, it will be enough for our purpose if we
only mention the testimony of the earlier writers.

(1) Irenseus, whose date is given by Souter in the
Sigla of his Greek Testament as second century, is
one of those whose statements are of considerable
importance, seeing that he lays claim to have been a
disciple of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted
with the Apostle John. In the third book of his
Treatise Against Heresies he says : "After the Apostles
were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit,
and fully furnished for the work of universal
evangelisation, they 'went out ' to the ends of the
earth, preaching lie Gospel. Matthew went east-
ward to those of the Hebrew descent, and preached
to them in their own tongue, in which language he
also published a writing of the Gospel ; while Peter
and Paul went westward and preached and founded
the Church in Rome. But after the departure of
these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
even he, delivered to us in writing the things which
were preached by Peter." A question which has
hardly been satisfactorily solved even yet might
be raised as to the proper interpretation of this
quotation. It is not necessary, however, for our
purpose to enter into that. The conclusion is quite
certain, viz. that the Gospel of Mark was in the
time of Irenseus associated with the preaching of
St. Peter.

(2) The testimony of Justin Martyr is doubtful,
and of no great value in this particular connection.
He seems to speak of the " Memoirs of Peter " (" his
memoirs"), and so far he contributes confirmation
to the tradition.

34

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

(3) More attention may, perhaps, be bestowed
upon ; the statement of Papias, who flourished, as
already remarked, about the close of the first or begin-
ning of the second century. Irenaeus says he was the
companion of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple
of John the Apostle. It is reasonable to expect that
he would be familiar with the broad facts current
in the Christian society of his day. He seems to
have been diligent in gathering together as large
a quantity of material as possible ; many, however,
doubt whether he was a very discriminating judge
of its quality. Eusebius has preserved in.his history
what Papias recorded from the lips of John the
Presbyter concerning the Evangelist Mark. This
would have much greater weight, possibly, if we
knew who John the Presbyter was; but we are
unable definitely to trace him outside Papias' state-
ments. " The Presbyter said this : Mark having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately
whatever he recorded. He did not, however, pre-
sent in regular order the things that were either
spoken or done by Christ ; for he had not been a
personal auditor or follower of the Lord. But after-
wards, as I said, he attached himself to Peter, who
gave instructions according to the necessities of his
hearers, but not in the way of making an orderly
arrangement of the Lord's words, so that Mark
committed no error in thus writing such details
of things as he recorded ; for he made conscience
of one thing, not to omit on the one hand, and not
to misrepresent on the other, any of the details which
he heard " (Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. 3 39 ).

Now, there seems to be too much protesting here,
and this can hardly be regarded as a cool and

35

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

unprovoked testimonial given to St. Mark. It savours
rather more of the nature of an apologia, and possibly
if we knew all the circumstances we would under-
stand why Papias speaks so strongly on the defensive,
as he here manifestly does. Perhaps there may be
discovered in his words a hint of the early disfavour
with which the Gospel by St. Mark was regarded.
However that may be, all that we need take from the
passage is, that the writer of this Gospel was clearly
considered, at this early date, to have been indebted
to St. Peter for the principal part of his information.

This must suffice so far as the testimony of the
Fathers is concerned; perhaps a few sentences will
be acceptable and useful as giving the opinion of
modern scholars on the point.

(4) Prof. Swete in the Introduction to The Gospel
According to St. Mark examines in some detail the
earlier of these quotations mentioned above, pointing
out that there are really two lines of tradition
connecting St. Peter and St. Mark, which though
they " have much in common they are by no means
identical, and probably depend on sources partly
or wholly distinct." Still, it is quite apparent the
connection of the Gospel with St. Peter cannot be
shaken. He goes on to say : " The internal evidence
does not amount to proof of Petrine origination.
But it is entirely consistent with the tradition which
represents St. Mark as specially indebted to St.
Peter." His conclusion is : " On the whole, it seems
safe to assume as a working theory of the origination
of the Gospel that its main source is the teaching of
Peter, which has supplied nearly the entire series
of notes descriptive of the Galilean ministry, and
has largely influenced the remainder of the book.

36

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

But allowance must probably be made, especially in
the last six chapters, for the use of other authorities,
some perhaps documentary, which had been familiar
to the Evangelist before he left the Holy City."

(5) Morrison in his Introduction states respecting
the internal evidence that the Gospel may supply
upon this point : " There is certainly nothing in
the contents or texture of St. Mark's Gospel which
can decisively determine that it was drawn from
the well-spring of St. Peter's discourses. But on
the other hand there is nothing that is in the
least degree at variance with the patristic tradi-
tion " (Introduction, paragraph VII. p. xxxiv). He
then proceeds to a more or less detailed examina-
tion of certain of the contents, which leads him
to the conclusion that these corroborate the
patristic statements. His final judgment is in
the following significant words : "In short, if
we assume the patristic tradition regarding the
Apostle's relationship to St. Mark, we find the
contents and texture of the Gospel to be, without
a jar on any point, in perfect accord with the idea "
(Introduction, paragraph VII. p. xxxvii).

(6) Salmon in his Introduction to the New Testa-
ment is even more decided. He takes the first
chapter of St. Mark as giving a detailed account of
our Lord's doings on one day. Four disciples are
mentioned as associated with Jesus at this time, and
by a process of elimination he arrives at the prob-
ability that St. Peter would be the person most
likely to remember these occurrences. This is
corroborated by a study of the story of the Trans-
figuration : " For to whom else is it likely that we can
owe our knowledge of the words he caught himself

37

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

saying as he was roused from his heavy sleep, though
unable, when fully awake, to explain what he meant
by them ? " Salmon then goes on to affirm : " It
seems to me, then, that we are quite entitled to
substitute, for the phrase ' triple tradition,' ' Petrine
tradition,' and to assert that a portion, if not the
whole, of the matter common to the three Synoptics
is based on what Peter was able to state of his
recollections of our Lord's Galilean ministry."
Again, " Thus we are led by internal evidence solely,
to what Papias stated had been communicated to
him as a tradition, viz. that Mark in his Gospel
recorded things related by Peter ; but we must add
not Mark alone, but Luke and Matthew also only
we may readily grant that it is Mark who tells the
stories with such graphic fulness of detail as to give
us most nearly the very words of the eyewitness. To
this Renan bears testimony. He says (p. xxxix) :
' Mark is full of minute observations, which, without
any doubt, come from an eyewitness. Nothing for-
bids us to think that this eyewitness, who evidently
had followed Jesus, who had loved Him, and looked
on Him very close at hand, and who had preserved
a lively image of Him, was the Apostle Peter
himself, as Papias would have us believe ' " (Salmon,
Introduction to N.T., pp. 137, 138). It is quite
possible that Dr. Salmon would not have subscribed
fully to everything in the foregoing quotation in
his later years, and it will be instructive to have his
very latest opinions as given in The Human Element
in the Gospels (pp. 21, 22) : " Speaking for myself,
I may say that I have found no reason to believe
in anything that later writers have added to what
Papias had stated ; and that I do not believe that

38

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES ,

St. Peter had any share in the composition of St.
Mark's Gospel, or that he was in any way responsible
for its contents. But I consider that critical study
would lead us to believe that some of the Evangelist's
statements were derived directly or indirectly from
that Apostle ; and, therefore, I would not hastily
reject a tradition that there had been personal
intercourse between them. What inclines me most
to accept the statement of Papias, is the marked
difference of style between the section of the Gospel
which relates what happened before the calling of
Peter and those which tell of what happened after it
the contrast between the meagreness of St. Mark's
narrative in the one case and its fulness in the other.
. . . The change, then, from an abridged to a
detailed narrative takes place exactly when Peter
comes into the story ; and thus internal evidence
harmonises with the very ancient tradition that the
Evangelist had had personal intercourse with St.
Peter."

(7) Prof. Menzies in his Introduction to The
Earliest Gospel puts the statement of Papias in
particular through a careful examination and comes
to the following conclusion : " His story, therefore,
,is not to be taken as a complete account of the
writing of the second Gospel, but only as a con-
tribution, in the style of Early Church tradition, to
our knowledge of that undertaking. We may be
sure that Mark regarded his reminiscences of Peter's
information as a most valuable part of the materials
he was able to command, and that he either made
notes of what Peter said at the time of hearing it,
or set to work at once when the Apostle was removed
to write it down. With this he worked up the other

39

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

sources he had collected, and so produced the work
we know" (p. 51).

(8) The last evidence we shall consider in this
connection is that which is furnished by the first
Epistle of Peter. In chapter 5 13 we have the
following : " The (church that is) at Babylon,
elected together with (you), saluteth you ; and (so
doth) Marcus my son " (A.V.) . As there is a question
of interpretation here, perhaps a literal translation
will be useful : " She in Babylon, fellow-elect (elect
with) saluteth you, also Marcus my son." Now,
if this could be satisfactorily shown to refer to our
Mark, the author of the Gospel, there would be in
it a substantial support for the contention that the
Evangelist was largely using, in his composition,
material supplied to him by the Apostle. The first
clause of the verse just quoted would further afford
strong corroboration of the statement of some of
the Fathers that the Gospel was written in Rome
that is, of course, assuming for the moment that
Babylon means Rome. Writing on the words
" Marcus my son," Alford in his Greek Testament,
vol. iv. (3rd ed.), says : " Perhaps, and so most have
thought, the well-known evangelist ; perhaps the
actual son of Peter bearing this name. The vios is
understood spiritually or literally, according as one
or other of the above views is taken." This is
certainly a qualified position to take up and is not
very helpful. There is in it, too, a suggestion that
this Marcus may actually have been Peter's son. We
do not know what ground Alford had for that.
There is, of course, the use of the word wos, which
he admits may have had a spiritual meaning. We
have no trace elsewhere of an actual son of Peter,

40

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

and it would be strange to find such mentioned in this
incidental manner. We are justified in assuming that
the person spoken of in the Epistle must have been
well known, and there is only one Mark who conforms
to that requirement that is, of course, the Evange-
list. We know from Acts 1 2 12 that Peter was a visitor
at the house of the mother of John Mark. It is
quite reasonable to believe that the Apostle and the
Evangelist would have become acquainted there.

Prof. M'Giffert in History of Christianity in the
Apostolic Age endeavours to establish that the first
Epistle of Peter was written by Barnabas. He says,
pp. 599 f., " That Barnabas should speak of him
(Mark) as his son was very natural, but it is not likely
that anyone else would do it save Paul himself." But
we do not see why it would be natural for Barnabas
to write, " Marcus my son." We are told very
distinctly in Paul's Epistle to the Colossians (4 10 ) that
Mark was a " sister's son " of Barnabas. It is rather
improbable, then, that Barnabas would call his nephew
his son ; and it can hardly be a spiritual relationship
that is intended in this case, for practically when we
encounter Barnabas in gospel history we meet Mark
at the same time. It must also be kept in mind that
the Evangelist had come into contact with Peter
before we find him in the company of Barnabas.

We think it is a still less likely suggestion that
Paul should call Mark " my son." Their earlier
associations were unfortunate, and while they were
reconciled in later life, and we find from the Epistle
to the Colossians that Paul had formed a high
opinion regarding Mark, there is nothing in their
whole intercourse that would suggest the Apostle
would speak of the Evangelist in the terms before us.

41

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

In fact the Epistle referred to is generally interpreted
as indicating that Paul was afraid the Churches of the
Lycon valley might not receive Mark very kindly
because of his former desertion of the Apostle. If
that be so, it is extremely improbable that Paul
would ever use the phrase " Marcus my son."

Closely allied to this point is the interpretation of
the earlier part of I Pet. 5 13 , " She in Babylon,
fellow-elect, saluteth you." If by Babylon, here,
is intended Rome, as most scholars and indeed the
early fathers agree, then we have in this reference
strong corroboration of the belief generally accepted
that the Gospel was written at Rome from material
supplied by St. Peter, because I Pet. 5 13 on this
interpretation shows that the Apostle and Evangelist
were together at Rome when this Epistle was
written. Writing on this passage in his commentary
already mentioned, Alford makes a suggestion which
is both ingenious and interesting. After referring
to certain points he says: "These considerations
induce me to accede to the opinion of those who re-
cognise here the ae\(f>ti yvvtj whom St. Peter irepltiyev
(i Cor. 9 5 )." We think this interpretation of the
clause has been influenced by the presence of the
feminine n as well as by the nature of the immediate
context, which seems to require that a distinct
individual should be mentioned. It must not be
forgotten, however, that Peter's wife is a rather
unobtrusive person in the Gospel narrative, and if
she is referred to in this verse, it is a rather singular
epithet that is used to designate her. If Peter
meant by n ev /3a@v\<avt his wife, we are bound to
infer that she was generally well known and prominent
in the Christian community, which is not supported

42

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

by the available evidence. We believe it is quite
a unique way of referring to a lady in the New
Testament, if Dr. Alford's suggestion is accepted.

Menzies in the Introduction to The Earliest
Gospel (pp. 43, 44) deals with this very point, and
his conclusion may be ascertained from the following
quotation : " The last mention of Mark in the New
Testament connects him not with Paul but with
Peter, and we are there reminded of: that earlier
part of his history when he was a member of the
Jerusalem Church, and when the house he belonged
to was a place of meeting for the brethren and the
place to which Peter turned when he escaped from
prison. In I Pet. 5 13 we read, 'She (church or)
diaspora at Babylon, elect along with you, greets you,
and Mark my son.' If I Peter is a genuine work of
the Apostle of that name, these words would show
that Mark was closely connected with him at the
time when it was written. If the Babylon spoken
of is Rome, as most scholars hold, then Mark's
connection with the capital of the empire indicated
in 2 Tim. is also indicated here, and we have to think
that he lived on at Rome, with Peter as his chief
instead of Paul." It is true that Prof. Menzies goes
on to throw some doubt upon the Petrine authorship
of i Peter. But this hardly shakes the firmness of
the tradition that SS. Peter and Mark were closely
related in their work at a certain period, and that
the latter was dependent upon the former for a
considerable quantity of the material found in the
Gospel. It is interesting to observe that most of
the reasons urged against the Petrine authorship in
The Earliest Gospel are of a negative character,
chiefly arguments from silence, which are generally

43 .

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

admitted to be unsafe. But do not the reference
and the circumstances rather argue against Prof.
Menzies ? We know from other sources that Mark
and Peter were closely associated in earlier life.
We know also that the Evangelist and Paul were
similarly associated ; one or other of these two in
all probability wrote the words "Mark, my son,"
in i Pet. 5 13 . That it was not Paul is a fair in-
ference from 2 Tim. 4 11 , and besides, the word used
by Paul in referring to a spiritual relationship was
TCKVOV ; here in I Peter it is vlos. Prof. Menzies
also finds a difficulty in " connecting a work written
in elegant and flowing Greek with an Apostle who,
in addressing audiences, made use of an interpreter."
But Mark was, according to tradition, his interpreter,
and he was evidently with Peter when this Epistle
was written. The flowing Greek may, therefore,
be the Evangelist's, even though there are differences
of style between it and the Gospel, if it could not be
the Apostle's. The author of I Peter must have
been an Apostle or an impostor, because he claims
in chapter 5 1 to have been " a witness of the suffer-
ings of Christ." The Epistle does not look like the
work of an impostor ; and this claim to have been
an eyewitness of the agony and crucifixion of Jesus
was not one that would have been put forward by
an early Christian unless it had been true. If it
be genuine, who is more likely to have written the
Epistle than Peter, whose name was so early associated
with it ?

It has been thought a necessary part of our
inquiry to follow out the Petrine connection with
the Gospel of Mark with some carefulness and
fulness, because a good deal depends upon it when

44

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

we proceed to consider the question of the contents,
in order to ascertain whether any other documents
or sources can have been earlier than those upon
which the Gospel depends. If the Petrine founda-
tion for it has been established, then it is quite clear
that the fundamentals found in St. Mark, in fact
that the basis of the Gospel story, are as early as
any other documents or sources can be, for in their
ultimate origin they rest on the testimony of an
eyewitness. We cannot say the records are earlier
than such documents ; whether we hold the oral or
written theory nothing can carry us back further
than apostolic authority. If, as a general condi-
tion, we have in St. Mark's Gospel the narrative
as related mainly by St. Peter, then we have an
adequate explanation of the autoptic touches found
so prominently in it. Certainly it is possible that
Q or some such document may have been reduced
to writing, may have taken definite form as a book,
before the Gospel with which we are concerned ;
but their contents could not have been earlier.
There is a certain aspect in which the age of a book
is not to be determined by the date of its publication,
but by the age of the things which it records. So it
is here. The age of this Gospel is not to be settled by
the date in which it was generally acknowledged, or
came into circulation in the Early Church. St. Peter
might have been telling twenty or thirty years after
the events, what he had seen, but he was telling of
them as he had seen them ; he was reproducing them
as they occurred, as he had had a share in them.
In the descriptions in this Gospel we have word-
pictures of earlier incidents that the Apostle had
actually seen taking place. In particular it is

45 '

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

intended to be, in some measure, a narrative of the
life and history of Jesus ; and he tells the story as he
saw it unfolding before his eyes, while he was a
disciple of the Lord. So far as the material, then,
is concerned, and we take it that is the essential
thing, nothing can have priority over that found in
the Gospel. Speaking of it, Menzies affirms it is
"the earliest and simplest picture to us of the
ministry of Jesus " (p. 5 1).

It may be convenient at this point to refer to two
recent contributions to the Synoptic problem which
would not accord with what we have now stated
regarding Mark's Gospel. The first of these contri-
butions is found in the "Studies in Theology
Series "Gospel Origins, by Holdsworth (1913).
The author seems to accept the idea of this Gospel
being the earliest, and dependent to some extent
upon St. Peter. But in regard to it he evolves a very
interesting theory which is rather difficult to prove
and equally difficult to criticise. His plan .is to
apply the oral tradition scheme, of Dr. Wright say,
to documents. He appears to think there were
three editions of Mark's Gospel in different places /
one at Caesarea, one at Alexandria, and the other at
Rome. One of them was used by St. Luke, one by
St. Matthew, and the remaining one became the
basis of our present second Gospel. As we. have
hinted, absolute proof one way or another cannot, of
course, be forthcoming ; but the following observa^
tions suggest lines of criticism of this theory which
it is not necessary to develop here, (i) Do not the
objections urged against Dr. Wright's scheme apply
with equal force against this, i.e. of course as far as
they are applicable ? , (2) If it is seriously maintained

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

that there were three editions of this Gospel,
we would like to know what relation they bore to
each other. Were they editions as we now under-
stand the word ? If so, the three practically resolve
themselves into one original, and we are left where
we were. If, on the other hand, they were con-
siderably different, and Mr. Holdsworth dwells
upon that point, believing he can even, because of
their differences, point out which was written at
Alexandria, which at Caesarea, etc., then do they
not amount to three separate Gospels? (3) '.It
is strange there is no mention or trace of these
three editions by any of the Fathers. One would
have expected a knowledge of their existence to
have been betrayed, but no proofs of any kind are
forthcoming. (4) The theory is interesting, but
meanwhile lacks evidence in support of it.

In the autumn of 1920 there appeared a book
with the arresting title, The Solution of the Synoptic
Problem j by Mr. Robinson Smith (Watts & Co.,
London), Considering the title 'of the book and
the, widespread interest in the subject, it is to
be regretted that more definite and helpful results
have not followed its appearance. Yet if it had
satisfactorily accomplished what its author proposed
in the title, the Christian would have been for ever
indebted to him. There is ample ground for
criticism, but that is not the object we have before
us in this thesis. There are statements which we
think are decidedly biased, and perhaps even some
contradictions may be found. We are, however,
only concerned with what particularly relates to
the second Gospel. It is but just to say that the
author is more merciful to it than to the others, his

47 -

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

book being largely an attack upon the integrity of
St. Luke. In the Argumenta, p. vi, para. 16, -die
problem is stated thus : " The Synoptic problem,
viz. the relation between Mark, Matthew, and
Luke, especially the relation between their parallel-
isms, is solved by showing conclusively, by five lines
of evidence converging on one point, that Luke
followed on after Matthew and used him as a
source, even as Matthew followed on after Mark
and used him as a source " (dealt with pp. 917).
This simple plan has, however, very interesting
results : " There is therefore no reason for a Q or
hypothetical source of the matter common to
Matthew and Luke. The double tradition thus
falls to the ground, as does an earlier Mark, the
so-called Urmarcus. These false scents would never
have been followed up if scholarship had kept to its
task of never stating what it could not prove." The
evolution of the Gospels, Mr. Smith appears to
believe, is as plain and simple as anyone could
desire : " Matthew wrote knowing of Mark, John
wrote knowing of Mark and Matthew, and Luke
wrote knowing all three " (p. i). " These four
short biographies (the Gospels) were written, the
first within eighty years, the last within one hundred
and twenty years of the death of Jesus Christ "
(p. 2). The only support of this is the following,
relegated to a note : " Mark is almost certainly
quoted in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, of
which the date is not later than A.D. no. Mark is
later than Biblical Antiquities (falsely ascribed to
Philo), the date of which is A.D. 70. Mark is also later
than i Corinthians, which is also later than Biblical
Antiquities. Mark is probably later than 4 Ezra

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

(cap. 4), which as part of the Salathiel vision (cap.
3-10) is a terin of years, perhaps thirty later than the
fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. lliese facts would agree
with Mark being later than Josephus* Jewish Wars,
A.D. 75-79." The dates of the various Gospels
are as follows : Mark, A.D. 105-110; Matthew,
c. A.D. 120 ; John, c. A.D. 140 ; Luke, c. A.D. 145.

But Mr. Robinson Smith in the end seems to
incline towards the very generally accepted position,
for if with one hand he takes our old familiar Q from
us, he with the other gives us something that serves
the same purpose in 'The Gospel According to the
Hebrews. We must give his own words in this
connection : " Where, then, as in the New Testa-
ment writings, there is so much that is false as
statement and feeble as argument, one is tempted
to think that they reflect nothing that was true.
It is, indeed, the very existence of Christ that is
challenged to-day, as it was challenged by the
Doketists within a hundred years of His reputed
death. One thing alone can save us from this
extreme conclusion, and that is the discovery of
a document which is older than the Gospels, older
than the Epistles, and which shall bear on the face
of it evidence of greater truth. Such a document
I believe to be The Gospel According to the Hebrews "
(p. 64). It is necessary to remember the date given
by Mr. Robinson Smith to this Gospel of the Hebrews
is A.D. 80-90, and we are told without a blush it is
earlier than the Epistles, say Romans, I and 2 Cor-
inthians, or Galatians. We are afraid his views on
this aspect of the problem will not receive general
acceptance. We crave pardon for one more quota-
tion illustrative of this author's method of solving

49 4

CHRISTQLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the Synoptic problem; it is stated in distinct terms
(p. 6) as follows: "The first step is the frank re-
cognition that when two writers use the same words
in describing the same event, one writer is copying
the other. This is the first step in constructive criti-
cism put in the baldest terms." But further, " Pre-
ciseness of language need not be insisted on " (p. 7).
Now it is extremely doubtful if anyone would regard
this method as reliable or scientific. The situation
is not quite so simple. It is obvious that all the
alternatives are not exhausted by "this first step in
constructive criticism." It is just as probable that
the two writers in the case supposed may have been
both using a common original document, copies
of which they each possessed. This is enough to
show that this first step may not at all lead the
critic where he wants to go, supposing he wishes
to find out the whole truth. Mr. Smith's theory,
moreover, might account for the agreements in
the Gospels if there was nothing else against it, but
it will not account for the differences. We know,
of course, that one Evangelist used the works of
another when it suited his purpose to do so, but
that one writer simply sat down and recklessly
incorporated, altered, rejected, and even falsified
the works of his predecessors we do not admit ; yet
this seems to be the line along which Mr. Robinson
Smith finds the " solution of the Synoptic problem "
to lie. In his attack upon the integrity of St. Luke's
Gospel he states with evident approval the following :
" In the English translation of his The Acts of the
Apostles, Harnack devoted twenty-eight pages to a
list of his inaccuracies and discrepancies in that book
alone." Well, it is good to be in good company,

50

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

and we, too, at; this point must refer to the most
recent position of that great scholar on this whole
subject of the Synoptic Gospels. r

In the Expositor for November 1920 there will
be found an article from the pen of Dr. Stalker of
Aberdeen which is of first-class importance, and the
subject with which it deals may have far-reaching
effects. The very title is significant : " A Revolu-
tion in New Testament Criticism." This article is
to some extent a review of the three most recent
books of Prof. Harnack Luke the Physician, The
Acts of the Apostles, and Date of the Acts and of
the Synoptic Gospels. The significance of the position
taken up by Harnack in these books is emphasised by
the fact that formerly he rejected practically all
those points he now accepts, " that he tested every
possible alternative ; and he came to his conclusions
only slowly and with reluctance." The conclusions
he. arrives at are briefly the following : (a) The Book
of the Acts has a marvellous unity ; (b) that it was
written by St. Luke ; (c) that " it is united with the
Gospel"; (d) that it was "most probably"
written about the year A.D. 62 ; (e) that St. Luke ? s
Gospel must be " assigned to the year 60 at latest "
and " St. Mark's remitted to the sixth decade."
It is to be hoped these latest efforts of Prof.
Harnack will obtain the same appreciation from Mr.
Robinson Smith that his earlier appear to have
received. Yet we must ask, Where is his theory
of Synoptic dependence upon The Gospel According
to the Hebrews now ? These latest dates, as
given in Prof. Harnack's work already mentioned,
must prove rather inconvenient for such a critic
as Mr. Robinson Smith. We need only emphasise

" ' .5. 1

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

that his date for St. Mark's Gospel is A.D. 105-10,
while the Professor put it in the sixth decade* No
doubt the final word on this point has not yet been
written, but in exhausting our references to this
volume which appeared in the autumn of 1920, we
desire to quote once more this sentence: "These
false scents could never have been followed up if
scholarship had kept to its task of never stating what
it could not prove."

Probably nothing could be truer than the state-
ment of Menzies in the section of his Introduction
dealing with " Motives of the Formation of the
Gospel Tradition," where he says : " To understand
any literary work it is necessary first of all to have
some acquaintance with the age which produced it " ;
then follows a very interesting examination of the
subject just mentioned. There is no doubt the
position taken up seems quite reasonable and has
much to commend it, but one wonders whether
Prof. Menzies has not overlooked some of the
facts. He very rightly points out the lack of details
in the Epistles and even the Acts concerning the
earthly life of Jesus. But that is surely to be
expected. Most of the Epistles were written for a
special purpose, to a particular Church, or company
of Christians. We need not, therefore, be dis-
appointed that details as to the person and work of
Jesus are lacking in such documents. The Acts was
written professedly as a continuance of a former
work in which ample particulars are given on the
very points mentioned by Menzies. No one would
expect that these should be repeated in the second
volume. Nor can we overlook the fact that the
Epistles and Acts were written to persons who were

52

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

presumably familiar with the details of the earthly
life of Jesus. " When Paul first preached to the
Galatians, what did he tell them about Christ ?
Not about the miracles, nor about His teaching,
but about His death" (p. 7). Well, that may be
so, so far as the information supplied by the Epistle
is concerned. We must, however, endeavour to
visualise the situation as it actually existed. Sup-
posing Paul had begun to preach about the death of
Christ to these Galatians, it is evident that they must
have asked immediately, "Who is Christ ? What
has His death to do with us ? Have you seen Him ?
Where did He live ? Where was He crucified ? "
And almost any one such question would lead to
the necessity for giving personal details concerning
the earthly life of Jesus. It appears as if Prof.
Menzies had written this part -of -the Introduction
with the Christian community alone in view, yet
these were familiar with many of the details con-
cerning the history of Jesus, and so did not require
to have them told again, even in an epistle. But
we cannot be content to keep the conditions of the
Christians only before our minds when attempting
to obtain a comprehensive and adequate conception
of the age which produced the Gospel. We know
there was a great spirit of inquiry abroad at this
period. We cannot, therefore, believe that the
people generally would not eagerly ask questions as
to the person of Jesus who, it was alleged, was
raised from the dead.

The religious state of the age which produced the
Gospels may find a somewhat appropriate parallel in
the mission field of to-day. When a missionary pro-
ceeds to preach the Gospel to those who are quite

S3

CHRiSTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

unfamiliar with religious and Christian truth, he surely,
must explain the leading facts in the story of Jesus of
Nazareth. It hardly appears possible to dissociate
the narrative of the life of Jesus from the doctrine
respecting " faith in the Risen Lord, now with
God. " Wherever the preachers of the Gospel went,
when they proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah, as the
Saviour of men, surely the necessities of the situation
would require them to explain who Jesus was, and
to convey as distinct an impression of His life and
work as it was possible for them to do. It will also
be obvious that this required to be done with a good
deal of accuracy, as there were those interested
who were undoubtedly ready and capable of exposing
any errors or falsehoods. It is clear, too, that the
one part of this history of Jesus depended upon the
other, and the teaching of the one implied the
necessity for communicating the other likewise.
This is manifestly understood and accepted by
Prof. Curtis in his History of Creeds and Con-
fessions, where he writes : " The preachers of Jesus
had to tell the story of His life in support of their
contention that hope and prophecy found fulfilment
in Him as Christ. Their recollection of His career
had to be set alongside their estimate of His person.
Accordingly in the apostolic age confession fluctu-
ated between three main forms : (i) acceptance of
Him as Christ, or Lord, or Son of God ; (2) accept-
ance of an outline of the main facts of tradition
about His home and life ; and (3) acceptance of the
threefold Divine self-revelation in Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit " (p. 37). So that we may be safe in
assuming that wherever the earliest preachers of the
Gospel went to break up new ground, whether in

54

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

Galilee or Judaea, Rome or Galatia, inevitably in
preaching Christ as crucified, they must have given
the main facts in the human life of Jesus. This is
a fair and reasonable inference from 2 Cor. 5 16 :
"Yea, though we have known Christ after the
flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more."
It would not, therefore, be far from the mark to
say that the Gospels were in their incipient stage
when these preachers were giving such details, some
of which must have fallen within their own experi-
ence and observation.

May it not have been possible that the very
emphasis laid upon the " heavenly figure " of the
Christ, and the promulgation of the advanced
Christology we find in most of the Epistles, led to
the necessity, at least in a measure, for the writing
of a Gospel that would give some particulars of the .
human life of Jesus of Nazareth and of His labours
in Galilee ? For instance, could the people of
Rome be quite content with the Epistle written to
them by St. Paul ? Would it have satisfied fully
the requirements of the situation ? There is no
narrative matter concerning Jesus in this Epistle,
but there is a very advanced Christology, while
there is perhaps just as advanced Ghristology in St.
Mark, but abundance of narrative material added.
We may say there is much abstract and abstruse
doctrine in the one, but scarcely any doctrine at
all in the other. As St. Mark's Gospel has been
associated with Rome in early Christian tradition,
is it possible that the character of these two books,
in view of the circumstances, was accidental ? The
Roman Christians must have been most deeply
impressed with the profound teaching of the

55

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Epistle, and it certainly gave them enlightenment in
several directions as to Christ's work and relation to
such matters as justification and righteousness, or
the relation of the law to the Christian system. But
it told them nothing about the Man ; and they
would have been less than mortal if they had not
desired to know about Him ; and it is not at all
improbable that St. Mark's Gospel was written to
supply this felt need. As the Epistles with their
somewhat advanced teaching began to be read, and
as the work of the Church was extended and new
territories were being entered into, as the older
generation of believers was passing away and a new
generation arising, the demand became more and
more urgent that a record should be drawn up as
carefully as possible, so that people might be in-
structed in the earthly history of the risen and exalted
Saviour. At first, we imagine, it was not so much
that the Christians themselves needed gospels ;
rather it was that they found them necessary for the
use of others who were not so well versed in the
Christian tradition. They also required them, as
has been suggested already, as complements to the
other Christian writings that were now appearing.

It is a matter of discussion also whether these
Gospels were so late as Prof. Menzies, following
Westcott, evidently thinks. He suggests that the
late appearing of the Gospels was largely due to the
possibility " that in the first Christian age a full
account of the earthly life of the Saviour was not
required " (p. 6). We have already answered that
and indicated its improbability ; but in developing
his argument Menzies says (p. 6) : " The Epistles
were written, the journal in Acts and perhaps other

56

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

parts of that work were written, very early in the
history of the Church." Is there not, however,
involved in this statement that which contradicts
the position he wishes to establish and explain, viz.
the lateness of the Gospels ? Does not the early
appearance of the Acts carry with it the earlier
appearance of the third Gospel, and does not this
in turn involve the still earlier appearance of St.
Mark ? Perhaps Prof. Menzies in this statement
designedly discriminates between the journal in
Acts and the remainder of that book, and while
admitting the early appearance of the former,
would deny it in the case of the latter. Dr. Salmon
in his Introduction to the New Testament devotes a
considerable part of chapter xviii. to prove that
the Book of Acts is a unity as far as authorship
is concerned. It will be sufficient to quote the
following sentence: " An independent proof of the
unity of authorship is obtained from a study of the
language " (p. 303). Page says : " The Acts exhibit
throughout an identity of language and style." But
the most recent and most important contribution to
the subject of the date of the Gospels is that which
has already been referred to, viz. Dr. Stalker's
review in the Epositor for November 1920 of the
three recent books of Harnack. We may only add
to what has already been stated, that the position
now assumed by this great German scholar gives
weighty confirmation to the point we have en-
deavoured to establish above, viz. that along with
doctrinal teaching concerning the person and work
of Jesus, historical teaching was also given. It
shows, likewise, that the early Christians did not lack
interest in the facts and details of the career of Jesus.

57

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

If Harnack's position is to be accepted, it follows
that the writers of the Synoptics were much nearer
the events in time than has hitherto been supposed
by many scholars, and that there was not the same
likelihood of environment, preconception, or re-
flection producing influences and tendencies that
would prejudicially affect the accuracy of the
narratives they were recording. If Mark was written
between A.D. 50-60, there must have been many
reliable persons from whom the Evangelist could
have obtained any requisite particulars relative to
the life of Jesus. And one certainly feels that the
nearer one gets to the time of our Lord, the stream
of tradition concerning Him is the more likely to
be pure and trustworthy. But, again, if Harnack's
position be accepted, does it not follow that we
must put another interpretation upon the words
of Irenaeus from that which is now pretty generally
received ? " But after the departure of these (Peter
and Paul), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter, even he, delivered to us in writing the things
that were preached by Peter." Many authorities
believe the words " after the departure of these "
refer to the death of Peter and Paul, which may be
placed, according to tradition, somewhere about
A.D. 64. Indeed, if Harnack's recent views be
adopted, it seems inevitable that, as a consequence,
we must re-examine our theory as to the original
sources underlying the Gospels, and St. Mark's in
particular. For if it be brought back to the early
date already mentioned, there appears little enough
time for any other important sources that could have
influenced it to have sprung into existence. And
herein we find corroboration for the view already

58

PETRINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

expressed, that St. Mark was mainly, if not entirely,
dependent upon St. Peter in the composition of his
Gospel for such information as he could not gather
himself. The further interesting question may now
have to be faced by scholars as to whether there was
sufficient time for Q to have assumed distinctive
shape and authority within such a short period as
twenty-five years or so after the crucifixion, even
supposing St. Mark to have used it. Possibly the
way of escape may be found in a modification of our
ideas in regard to the contents of Q, and adopting
more stringently the belief that it was more strictly
a collection of the sayings of Jesus than some scholars
are now disposed to accept. In short, that it was
not essentially different in its contents from the
" Preachers' Manuals " already mentioned, and could,
therefore, have been of little service to St. Mark
in the composition of his Gospel.

In endeavouring to form an opinion of the cir-
cumstances that contributed to the rise of gospel
literature, we must not overlook the influence of the
Jewish writings, particularly those of the Old
Testament. We know that it was receiving a great
deal of attention about the beginning of the Christian
era, and it need hardly be pointed out that much
information regarding the Messiah was to be
obtained from it. These writings must, therefore,
have had some considerable influence in shaping the
character of the Gospels. As the writers of the
latter would be familiar with the Old Testament
teaching from their earliest days, there could be
nothing more natural than that they would, to some
extent at any rate, mould their books upon these
earlier religious writings, regarded by them as so

59

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

sacred. As a matter of fact, and just as we would
expect, both Mark and John commence their Gospels
in imitation of Genesis; while Matthew seems to
have set himself the task of producing a volume the
chief object of which was to show that Jesus, in His
life and work, was the fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecy.

This being so, we must, as a consequence, be
prepared for Jewish presuppositions and even
prejudices in the Gospels, and when studying their
story of the life of Jesus we ought always to take
that into account. Fortunately St. Mark's Gospel
is fairly free from this influence. Still, we must
remember that even he gives us a picture from a
Jewish standpoint, which to some extent may have
been affected consciously or unconsciously by his early
upbringing and environment.

Probably the most necessary thing in any study
pertaining to the life of Jesus is sympathy. It is,
of course, good to be as unbiassed as possible. But
it also seems needful, if we are to arrive at a fair
and clear idea of Christ as He is presented to us in
any of the Gospels, that we should endeavour to
enter as fully and vividly as we can into the ex-
periences of those who either wrote or told the
story, and who were so deeply influenced and
impressed by the personality of our Lord. If we
are to give a faithful portrait, that is to say, of the
Christ as painted, for instance, by St. Mark, we
must try to think ourselves into the positions and
conditions indicated by the Gospel, and this to be
rightly done requires the sympathetic spirit as
well as the discerning mind. Nor can we fail to be
deeply influenced by the broad lines of the story

60

PETKINE AND OTHER INFLUENCES

as it is told by each of the Synoptists in his own
way. Probably there is no sublimer work upon
earth than this narrative which tells of how a Man
became a God. We must realise that the task that
these historians really set before them was to show
how One who at first proclaimed Himself as a Son
of Man, had in the end Divine attributes ascribed
to Him. How they accomplish that extraordinary,
yea, that unique, task is just by telling simply the
story of the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed
one of them is content with much less than that,
for he only deals with the period of the public
ministry of our Lord ; indicating thereby that he
is satisfied this will be enough for his purpose.
Details of birth or of ancestry, of domestic relation-
ships or of early training, have scarcely any interest
for him. He is concerned with the work of Jesus.
He is absorbed in the contemplation of a power in
operation which in the end he can only regard as
Divine.

Nor must we fail to appreciate the very formidable
task that Jesus Himself had taken in hand. Surely
no story ever told reveals such a weighty under-
taking. That a Man of humble origin, of obscure
birth, possessing no earthly advantage but rather
handicapped in many ways, should set before Him
as a goal the living of such a life as should, first of
all, lead His companions to recognise that He was a
superman, and beyond that, that He was indeed the
Son of the Living God! Can there be anything
more impressive than to realise that the Son of
Maryj who was not the Son of Joseph, was so to live
and act that men should acknowledge Him to be
the Son of the Blessed ? Can there be any parallel

61

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to the scheme which Jesus set before Him as to the
revelation of the Father that His life was to be a
setting forth of the life of God ? Greek mythology
supplies us with instances of gods coming down from
heaven to dwell among men, but there is a sublimer
conception in the story of Jesus, for in it we may
behold a Man coming from heaven, who returns to
it as God. And the transformation is effected in
three short years of public work three years of
living such a life that men are in the end led to
the conclusion that "Verily this was the Son of
God." The Gospels show us the process by which
this great change in the thoughts of the disciples
and others concerning Jesus of Nazareth took place.
We have now reached the conclusion of such
introductory matter as seemed necessary before
entering upon the main theme -" The Ghristology
of the Earliest Gospel." Of the Gospels familiar
to us there can hardly be any doubt that St. Mark's
is the earliest. The only question is, whether or
not he was to any considerable extent dependent
upon Q ; and we think not, both from the generally
accepted nature of Q as well as from the nature
of the Gospel. In any case, the Petrine tradition
appears to be reliable, and this would provide the
Evangelist with an amply trustworthy and sufficient
source for his abundant narrative material. We
are, therefore, in a position to proceed, being
assured that in St. Mark's Gospel we are drinking
from the well-springs of apostolic revelation, and
through Peter brought in it to earliest, closest, and
oftentimes most real touch with Jesus Himself.

CHAPTER III

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

IN taking up such a volume as the Gospel according
to St. Mark for close and careful study, one feels at
once the need of divisions. While it is true the
Gospel is the shortest of all four, still every student
of these " memoirs " has found the need for trying
to break them up into suitable parts. This is often
helpful to a right understanding of the various
material dealt with in the Gospel. Swete says:
" Attempts were made at an early time to break
up the Gospels into sections corresponding more or
less nearly to the nature of the contents " (p. i).
This would form a very obvious and usually
convenient system of division, but it does not
reveal the existence of any very definite plan in the
particular Gospel examined. There can be little
doubt that there was such a plan in the mind of -die
writer. The author quoted just now says further :
" Even a hasty examination will show that the
book (i.e. Mark) deals with twogrea:tjtheme^--the
ministnrjn Galilee (i 14 -o, 5 ) anH^lHelasFwe^ at
( I i*-i 6 8 ), and that

inected by a comparatively brief survey of the
period which intervened ( I o 1 ' 52 ) . The first fourteen
verses of the Gospel are evidently introductory ; the
last twelve have the character of an appendix."

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

We shall just place these particulars in a table,
giving with it the divisions of the Gospel as suggested
by Zahn and S almond.

SWETE. ZAHN.

1. I 1 ' 14 Introductory. I. I 1 ' 14 .

2. i 14 -^ 50 Ministry in Gali- 2. I 16 " 46 .

lee. 3. 2 1 ~3 6 .

3. 10 Brief survey con- 4. 3 7 -6 13 .

necting 2 and 4. 5. 6 14 -io 52 .

4. n 1 -^ 8 Last week at Jer- 6. H 1 -i6 8 .

usalem. 7. ? Appendix.

5. I6 9 " 20 Appendix.

SALMOND GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISIONS.

1. I 1 " 14 .

2. I 14 -7 23 .

3.

4. lo 1 - 31 .

5. io 32 -i5 47 .

It will be observed that Zahn is more detailed
in his sections than the other two. Salmond's is
confessedly on a geographical basis, and Swete's
seems to be drawn up from an historical point of
view. It is but a bare summary of the main facts
of the story, and certainly from that aspect is quite
satisfactory. But we wish something more decided
and suggestive in dealing with the distinctive
Christological teaching of the Gospel. Is there apy
ppjl^^K^^sioh which will mark some development
of this particular theme in the Gospel ? "Tfiat is
to say, is there a plan discernible in it that will help

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

us to divide the teaching concerning the person and
office of Jesus in such a way as shall enable us to
have clearer and distincter views concerning Him as

Messiah ? We must remember"

that wTare looking at this whole matter through the
eyes of others ; so that our inquiry might rather be
put thus : Was there anything in the experience
of St. Peter, any incident or occurrence, that made
such an impression on his memory as to establish
a point around which many of his recollections
would cluster ? And the answer is in the affirma-
tive, there is such an experience. Scholars have
united in accepting the confession of St. Peter at
Csesarea Philippi as an epoch-maHng declaration,
which essentially affe^fie3^he"Tftitude of the dis-
ciples to, Jesus. We shall have to consider this con-
fession later in more detail ; let it be enough now to
say that after it the disciples could never again view
their Master as they had regarded Him before.
Possibly they had begun to suspect that He was more
than man; now they were assured of it; and we
may be certain that their relationship to Him, and
their conception of Him, gradually changed from
that time onwards. It must be confessed that no
division of the Gospel seems possible of being carried
absolutely into all the details ; inevitably they appear
to overlap and impinge upon each other. Yet it
might be found, from the purely Christological point
of view, the following would be suggestive :

1-14

1. I*'" Introductory.

2. I 14 ^8 33 Jesus as Man.

3. 8 34 -i6 8 Jesus as Messiah.

4. I6 8 " 20 Appendix.

65

5

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

The only merit this plan has, is that it emphasises
and recognises the great fact of Peter's confession ;
and it gives scope for the idea of a progressive reve-
lation of the Messianic claims of Jesus to develop.

As has been hinted at already, ti^re_isjittle
revealed in the earliest Gospel as to the human life
of Jesus. That is not what is chiefly before the
mind of the writer. None of the Gospels supplies us
with many de_tails ofthe early~liielof "our "Lord ;

II' I _ _ J ~~ """ "" - *.'-~ ...,_-..-.. fc -..-.. -.---'"" --. OWJ- *

Marj^gives_npne. J at.all. As we have seen previously,
there is nothing about His birth, His parentage, His
home, or His kindred. Indeed it would appear as
if these things that ordinarily absorb so much of
human interest possessed no attraction for him, so
eager is he to set forth Jesus as a Man of Power.
There are human touches scattered here and there
over the Gospel story, and, so far as St. Mark is
concerned, we are left pretty much to ourselves to
infer from these what sort of a man Jesus really was.
On one occasion, comparatively a short time after
He had entered upon His public work, His mother
and brethren came seeking Him, and on the multi-
tude intimating their presence to Him, "He
answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my
brethren ? And He looked round about on them
which sat about Him, and said, Behold my mother
and my brethren ! For whosoever shall do the will of
God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my
mother" (3 32fi> ) Now this passage rather appears
to suggest that Jesus did not at this stage desire to
recognise human ties, and that when He turned His
back upon His home at Nazareth 1'lfwas for^ever.
If that was so, He was probablyi~ln~ acting thus,
doing no more than many another teacher had done

66

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

before Him. Yet it seems likely that the proper
inference to be taken from the incident is, that He

were

han ., those suggested, . by even
ties. We may be sure tKere
was not the smallest thought in His mind of despis-
ing His home and friends, but that definitely He was
emphasising in a very impressive manner the spiritual
brotherhood He now desired to establish among
men. The fourth Gospel shows us (ig 261 -) that
even on the Cross earthly relationships and human
ties were dear to Him.

Further, we have every reason to conclude from
the general tone of our Gospel that Jesus was^ a
Man of strong^ attractiyje-jpow.ers. if we may noT
say of jnjte^Ls^jpersonal^ magnetism. This is seen,
for instance, in the circumstance that when He
called His disciples they immediately responded to
that call, and remained His attached followers,
although the conditions of their lives, sometimes,
could not have been very attractive or pleasant.
It is also deducible from the fact that the crowds
so frequently and even persistently waited on His
ministry. True, some of these were drawn to Him
through the cures that He effected ; but unless the
physical conditions of Galilee and Judaea were much
worse in those days than they are now, only a
comparatively small number of people were thus
helped by Him. Many must, therefore, have come
to hear Him speak, to listen to the message He
had to proclaim. Only this will fully explain the
thousands that gathered round Him, and which
were fed by Him, and definitely we are told that
" the common people heard him gladly " (i2 37 ).

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

That He was a man of lovable disposition goes
almost without saying ; yet St. Mark allows us to
infer that. We shall in this connection recall the
intense attachment of St. Peter (i3 32 ) and the
courageous zeal of SS. James and John (io 39 ). He
defends the disciples from the attacks of the Pharisees
(2 24ff -), and His whole relation to them was one
of exceeding tenderness and beauty. Ever He is
the Kind Friend, thinking of their comfort : " Come
ye yourselves apart and rest awhile : for there
were many coming and going, and they had no
leisure so much as to eat " (6 31 ).

He was,, further, a Man of broad sympathies_and
charitable actions : " And when He came out He saw
much' people, and was moved with compassion
toward them, because they were as sheep not having
a shepherd " (6 34 ). " He answered and said unto
them, Give ye them to eat " (6 37 ). Similarly we
are told in 8 2 , " I have compassion on the multitude,
because they have now been with me three days
and have nothing to eat."

These various passages show us Jesus as One who
was full of consideration for others, whether these
were of His disciples or of the common multitude
that came to hear Him. He might be hungry
Himself weary sometimes but He was solicitous
for the comfort of His friends. His mind, as we
have seen above, was at times so filled with a sense
of the importance of His spiritual mission as to
make almost everything else appear rather in-
significant ; yet much of His earthly ministry was
directed towards alleviating the physical sufferings
and needs of men.

Nor must we overlook the exceeding friendliness

68

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

He displayed towards the outcast from Jewish
religious society, and His generous treatment even
of His opponents. Certainly there were times
when He could be angry and stern, showing to a
degree the qualities of an Old Testament prophet,
as in the case of leprosy (i 43 ) ; but we have no
doubt always there were circumstances to justify
His indignation. And He certainly did show an
uncompromising spirit to His opponents wherever
principle and right were involved.

But when all that can be found in this Gospel
regarding Jesus as a Man is before us, we are sure
to discover that this is not an obtrusive thought in
the work of St. Mark. Perhaps we are justified in
saying that here He stands more alone, is more
apart than in any of the other Gospels, not even
excepting St. John's. In this we have Bethany,
but no home there. Martha, Mary, and Lazarus
are not mentioned. Indeed, on one of the mornings
of the last week at Bethany He comes to Jerusalem
and is hungry no food apparently having been
forthcoming (n 12 ). Jesus stands in this Gospel
more apart, because while He is a man, yet almost
from the very first the disciples recognise Him as
on a superior level to themselves. For many reasons
He never could have a perfect friend upon earth.
Friends needs must have common interests ; similar
views and purposes in life ; a community of thought.
With Jesus all such things seemed so different right
from the first. His view of life could not be identical
with that of the disciples ; His line of conduct far
exceeded their standard ; His devotion to duty was
utterly beyond their powers ; His submission to
the Divine Will incomparably more perfect than

GHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

they could offer. So that after all St. Mark is
perhaps right in not delaying with the details of the
earthly life of our Lord. He^jgainjs^^
of unbounded energy ancTiinlimited resources
pressing on towards the attainment of His^goal.

iJ,ilil '" ' ' '-P" "" ' --.' -., -.'-,. '..,.._-- .v-.i -.- -*.!. -y-^vV-. ^wr**---~--i**^*t~''*''= tir>ws.' *<.----, O

Yet, certainly, there were times when even this
wonderful Man craved for human sympathy, as
when in the Garden of Gethsemane He beseeches
His three disciples to watch (i4 34ff -) ; or perhaps
when He defends the woman who annointed His
feet with spikenard, saying, "Let her alone;
why trouble ye her ? she hath wrought a good
work on me. . . . She hath done what she could :
she is come beforehand to anoint my body to the
burying. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this
Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole
world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken
of for a memorial of her " (i4 6 ~ 9 ). It is important
that we should have as clear a photograph of the
Man-Jesus as possible, because it may be of immense
value in helping us to understand aright His ministry
as well as the influence He exercised upon His
disciples. Professor Curtis has well remarked in
History of Creeds and Confessions (p. 5) : " Faith
in Jesus Christ personally would naturally precede
faith in His Messiahship," Unfortunately the
materials furnished by St. Mark on this aspect of
the subject are not very plentiful. That Jesus ac-
complished the work given Him to do shows best
that the disciples and other followers must have had
faith in Him as a Man. Perhaps the highest tribute
to His perfect manhood will be found in Simon's
words at Csesarea Philippi : " Thou art the Christ."
In coming into direct and immediate contact

70

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

with the Gospel, our attention is at once arrested by
its opening words : "The beginning of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." This verse has
received a good deal of consideration from those
students who are interested in the Gospel. The
reasons are obvious, (i) Such advanced Chris tology
is not to be expected at the beginning v of a work the
primary object of which appears to be to manifest
that Jesus was the Son of God that is to say, this
statement forestalls the whole Christological develop-
ment to be found in the Gospel. (2) This style is
unexpected in the case of Mark, who generally does
not so anticipate. He is, for example, most careful
in an exact chronological use of the names " Simon "
and " Peter." (3) Christ is not a name used by
St. Mark elsewhere ; it is the designation of an
office The Messiah. This is a Pauline usage, and
both Salmon and Menzies refer particularly to that
fact; it is interesting as showing the influence of
the Apostle on the Evangelist. Menzies observes
in a note : " If accepted as part of the text, these
words must be understood like all the terms in this
verse in a Pauline sense. . > * In Paul, on the other
hand, the Son of God is a heavenly figure (Rom. I 4 ;
Gal. 4 4 ), who was with God before He appeared in
the world, and has now been exalted to still higher
honours than he enjoyed before. -In this verse the
words must express the writer's own view of Christ's
nature, and as he writes for Gentiles, only the latter
metaphysical sense of the phrase can be thought of"
(P- 57)- "As applied to our Lord, it involves the
great idea that he had in him a higher nature than
Man's. He was of one nature with God." (4) The
words " the Son of God " are omitted in one of our

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

most important MSS. (), and in several others of
lesser value, as well as by certain of the Fathers ;
there is, therefore, a critical problem here which we
shall take in hand first, (a) Although these words
are omitted in certain MSS., one of which is often
of prime authority, we must set against that the fact
that they are found in other MSS. quite as reliable,
and we might say of co-equal critical weight, and
probably a close scrutiny of the evidence would show
the balance in favour of retention rather than rejec-
tion of the words in question. Modern scholars are
somewhat divided in their opinions according as
they are influenced by the ancient authorities.
Morrison thinks the words " Son of God " " are
genuine, although Sinaitic MSS. omits, other first-
rate MSS. include." Salmon says : " I cannot feel
any doubt they are a genuine part of the Evangelist's
text." Swete suggests that "possibly the heading
existed almost from the beginning in two forms, with
and without vtov 9eoi7." He puts them in brackets.
His suggestion seems very unlikely. Westcott and
Hort insert them in the margin, but " hold that
neither reading can safely be rejected." Menzies
believes they are more likely to have been added to
the original text, and puts them in brackets. Souter
includes, but appends a note giving readings, etc.
Tischendorf omits, following N, as he usually does.
It is quite clear the weight of scholarship is in favour
of retaining these words, and it hardly seems a matter
of vital importance whether that retention is in the
margin, in brackets, or courageously in the body of
the text, (b) There is little doubt that the advanced
Christology in this verse has drawn attention to
it; but this hardly seems a sufficient reason for

72

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

urging a rejection of the phrase " the Son, ofjGod^-
even if we keep strictly in view the chronological
exactness of St. Mark. This verse may be regarded
as a title to the Gospel, and as such may be expected
to forecast teaching that was to be taken up in the
book itself. It must not be forgotten that when
St. Mark began to write his Gospel, his mind was
fully made up as to who Jesus was. And although we
believe there is a Christological development in the
volume, yet all through the writer often betrays a
belief in Jesus as the Christ the Son of God. (c) We
are asking too much from the Evangelist to expect
absolute chronological accuracy in the progressive
advancement of his teaching, seeing that all the facts
were known to him before he wrote anything, (d)
There is nothing gained by the rejection of the words,
for we find the same advanced Christology in con-
nection with the baptism a few verses farther down.
(e) When we remember St. Mark's association with
Paul, we expect some traces of Pauline use of phrases,
etc. (/) There is no question about the retention
of X/upTpv. in the verse, yet this word presents
the same kind of difficulty as vlov TOW 9e<w. (g)
Perhaps all that need be taken out of the verse so
far as doctrine is concerned, is that the story which
is about to be told is intended to lead to a belief
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. The title
may be regarded as standing to the Gospel somewhat
in the same relation as the text does to a sermon.
It is the essence of all that is to follow. In such a
sense we may accept the words, " The beginning of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," without
having our theory as to the development of the
Christology of the Gospel prejudicially affected in

73

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

any way. This is the title ; what follows is the
exposition of it. Still, we cannot disguise the fact
that it is most impressive to find these words
standing at the head, not of one Gospel only, but
as the very spring, as it were, out of which the whole
story of Jesus issued. Since Mark's is the earliest of
all our known Gospels, this first verse may quite
appropriately be regarded as the root, to change the
metaphor, from which all the others have sprung.
It is the one pregnant sentence out of which the
whole Christological teaching of the Church has
come; it is the very essence of the Gospel in
its fullest sense. " Jesus " the word implies the
humanity of our Lord, indicates that He was a
man, in many respects like other men, in physical
essentials the same as ourselves, with " body, parts,
and passions " that must both act and be acted upon.
"Christ" He is the great anointed of God,
promised of the ages, set apart for a holy office,
consecrated by the sacred oil of self-sacrifice to the
highest work of God. " God's Son " because to
discharge that office, a power, a devotion, a right-
eousness and holiness more than man could give,
were required. Thus the verse is an epitome of all
that is to follow, of all that, in the end, can be told
by the Evangelists, showing how the Carpenter of
Nazareth became the Saviour of men.

St. Mark begins his story about Jesus with the
ministry of John. He gives us no reason for this,
and we are therefore left to our own resources to
discover a probable explanation. The impression left
upon one in reading the opening sections of our
Gospel is, that the author seems so eager to enter
upon the tale he has to tell, that he is unwilling

74

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN- JESUS

to delay with matters that appear subsidiary to
the main work he has in hand. The story of
Jesus in the earliest Gospel is a revelation of His
public activity, and the work of John, provoking as
it did much popular attention, appeared to the
Evangelist a fitting point from which he himself
could start. And when we think of the reformatory
movement initiated and carried on for a period by
the Baptist, and then taken up by Jesus a work
which appeared to be of considerable interest and
extent we can see that there was some appropriate-
ness in taking this movement as a suitable place
from which to commence his own narrative. The
quotations given in verses 2 and 3 are probably
intended to refer, to John, and very particularly
to indicate the preparatory character of his mission.
One wonders whether they signify nothing more than
that. As well as a reference to the Baptist, may
there not also be found in them one to Jesus ? The
quotation from Isa. 4O 3 as translated by Delitzsch
runs thus :" Hark ! One calling: In the wilderness
prepare ye Jehovah's way, make plain in the desert
a high-road for our God " (Commentary on Isaiah,
p. 135) ; and Principal G. A. Smith gives practically
the same in his Book of Isaiah (vol. ii. p. 80). Now,
undoubtedly, in the prophecy it is Jehovah's way
that is to be prepared, while in the application of it
in the Gospel it is Jesus' way. The inference would
appear to be irresistible that thus early in the
narrative the Evangelist identifies Jesus with Jehovah,
and this very advanced position leads to the same
difficulties as those dealt with in verse I. It is
probable, certainly, that we must be prepared for a
more developed view of Christ in the introductory

75

GHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

part of St. Mark than we find in the body of the
work which follows. The explanation of this may
be found in this suggestion, that while in the intro-
duction Mark is giving a view of Jesus that is the
result of years of study, reflection, and experience, in
the story of the Gospel proper he tries to present
us with a lifelike picture of our Lord as He was
seen and understood by the disciples and other
early followers.

There is the same meagreness of detail in respect
to John that we have noticed already regarding the
person of Jesus. Only in the case of the former,
probably indeed because the Baptist was such a
striking figure, impressive, even unique, in his
outward appearance, is it described. It is quite
possible, if we may not put it even stronger than
that, that the thought of John, that even his
extraordinary appearance, remained for long as
an image and impression in the mind of St. Peter,
who was probably one of his disciples (John i). All
the Synoptists practically agree in their description
of the Baptist, and Mark regards him as the
messenger referred to by Malachi. We could have
wished for more details concerning that strange,
weird, lonely man who appeared as a meteor of
righteousness, all too soon to pass into darkness.
Yet, not before his work of preparation had been
fully accomplished. It is well to remind ourselves,
at this point, that we are now thinking of Jesus as
a man ; as one who had to grow up to man's estate,
tried in all points as we are. Mark does not tell
us, none of the Evangelists does, that which is also
necessary to bear in mind, that Jesus was dependent
upon the ordinary means provided in those times

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

for intellectual and moral education. Most of this
He must have received in His own home, and in the
synagogue at Nazareth. When He left that city
He would require to utilise the other opportunities
that might be available, if He was to make any
further progress. One source that we know was
open to Him when He had reached the estate of
manhood, was listening to the thrilling, soul-
searching words which fell from the lips of the
Baptist. The report of the work of John had
somehow been carried to Nazareth, and this had
made a call upon Jesus that He could not resist.
There can be no reasonable doubt that He, for a
period, waited upon the ministry of the Baptist.
How long this may have lasted we cannot say.
But only such a supposition will explain the words,
" There comes after me, he who is stronger than I,
for whom I am not fit to stoop down and untie his
shoe-string " (Menzies' translation). It seems quite
justifiable to infer from this passage that John must
have known already something about the impending
appearance of the Christ, and to have formed a
very high opinion of His character. Yet in the
fourth Gospel John distinctly says he did not
know Jesus at first (John I 31 ). Of course, it is
open for one to assert that the Baptist was speak-
ing prophetically when he declared, " There comes
after me he who is stronger than I," etc. ; but it
is quite gratuitous to fall back upon that position
when everything else indicates the likelihood that
Jesus was, for a time, drawn to the great reformatory
movement carried on by John in the valley of the
Jordan. We must not forget that Jesus, when He
began to preach, commenced in the identical words

77

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

He had heard from the Baptist ; neither should we
overlook this other consideration, that some of ^
John's followers were among the very earliest-,
disciples of our Lord.

We would fain have more information concern-
ing the relationship that existed between these two
wonderful men, but in our Gospel very little more is
forthcoming. That Jesus was influenced deeply by
the Baptist is plain from the circumstance that He
afterwards took up his battle-cry, "Repent, for the
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Yet, although
they draw close in some, they stand far apart in
other aspects of their work. The symbol that we
must associate with John and his radical reformation,
is that of a gleaming axe laid at the root of a tree.
" The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, therefore,
repent quickly or ye shall be cut off" this seemed
to have been the burden of his message. Right
almost in the first recorded public act of Jesus the
dove is set upon His brow emblematical of the
peaceful character of His spirit and methods. There
is the same urgent cry for repentance, but the
gentleness, patience, and compassion of Jesus have
banished the axe out of sight. He must win men
to Him by love and not by fear.

We have in the other Synoptics, although not in
Mark, the testimony of Jesus to John; we are more
concerned here with the testimony of John to Jesus,
and it will, no doubt, be found in its most original
and striking form in the Earliest Gospel. The
central thought in the mind of the Baptist, the
fundamental idea he appears to entertain respecting
our Lord, is that He is a person of extraordinary
might. It is of the utmost importance for us to

78

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

recognise and appreciate the testimony of John, for
it is nothing less than the keynote of our Gospel.
Repeatedly, as we shall see, the author returns to
this idea of the power that Jesus possessed ; that,
indeed, may be regarded as the central fact around
which everything else is grouped. From it the
whole Christology of the Gospel radiates. It is,
therefore, of prime importance to find this idea thus
set in the forefront of the Baptist's statement. It
might not be too much to affirm, that in this par-
ticular direction the Evangelist may be indebted to
John for this characteristic of his Gospel. He does
not offer any explanation for introducing Jesus in
this way, and it may be urged with some reason
that abruptness is a marked feature of the intro-
ductory part of his book. John is ushered in by two
sentences taken from the prophets ; Jesus in a
somewhat vague and indirect manner in the verse
already quoted.

There need be no hesitation in believing that
the testimony of John was of considerable value
to Jesus, especially at the commencement of His
labours. The worth of a testimonial depends, to
some extent, on the estimate we place upon the
person who gives it. John the Baptist quite clearly
was a man of great notoriety, power, and authority
among the people. The peculiar circumstances
attending his birth; his priestly lineage, and the
claim to the prophetic office which he evidently
made, must have combined to give him a distinct
and important position in the life and society of the
time. Probably this explains why he could address
the people so boldly and yet provoke no resentment
on their part. We can, consequently, set the value

79

GHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

of his testimony to Jesus at a very- high figure.
That such a man, at the beginning, should thus
recognise the inherent worth of our Lord must
neither be overlooked nor ignored.

Whether the appearance of the Baptist and his
revival work were a sign to Jesus that the time had
now arrived when He must Himself step out into
the wide world of public effort, or whether, as He-
waited on the ministry of John, the passion for
righteousness was awakened in His soul, and the
powers which hitherto lay dormant were now, by
the Baptist's fiery sentences, quickened into activity,
we can hardly say. There are reasons for believing
that there was some connection between the
Baptist's work and the appearance of Jesus in a
public capacity, though what this connection was
has remained hitherto in obscurity. Be that as it
may, the time arrived when He felt He must take a
part in the great work of reformation being carried
on in the valley of the Jordan, and that He must
identify Himself directly with John's mission, and
so He came to him to be baptised. Probably it
must always remain a matter of individual opinion
why He took this course. The difficulties that
arise, however, do not belong to this Gospel, for
St. Mark appears to be quite unconscious of any
peculiarity in the situation. He simply records the
fact that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan.
St. Luke follows him closely in this part of the
narrative. It is interesting to find, therefore, that
St. Matthew records the objection which the
Baptist raised : " John forbade him, saying, I have
need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me ? "
Perhaps this is an illustration of a more advanced

80

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN- JESUS

Christological view entertained by St. Matthew at
this stage. St. Mark apparently was unconscious of
any incongruity in Jesus thus coming to John ; it
may have been that the thought in his mind con- v
cerning the former at this particular juncture was,
that He was only a young man come from Nazareth.
It is, of course, always possible that he may not have
known of the objection referred to by St. Matthew.
That would be unlikely, certainly, if St. Peter was
present at the baptism, but we have no information
on that point, and Luke 3 21 rather indicates that the
baptism of Jesus was of a private character. There
is evidently more than one source for the story.

Again, we are left by the author of 'The Earliest
Gospel to conjecture a reason why Jesus desired
to be baptisedjby John. There" is ce.rtainljriiot
much enlightenment in St. Matthew's suggestion
" thus it. becojaetli^us^tc), fulj&l all righteous^^ " ;

even so much. If

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance for the
remission of sins, it is clear that it could not possess
this significance in the case of Jesus. For this
reason it seems unnecessary to delay in an attempt
to arrive at a fuller understanding of the import of
John's baptism ; the unconsciousness of sin on the
part of our Lord constitutes His a unique case.
Perhaps it will be sufficient to suggest as an explana-
tion of this baptismal act on His part, that it possibly
implied the abandonment of His former manner
of life and His entrance upon a new career. It was
both a renunciation and a consecration. A renuncia-
tion,^ in that He was giving up home and friends and
relatives, relinquishing all the ties and associations
that bound Him to the life of Nazareth. If He had

81 6

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

dreams, hopes, and ambitions such as are common
to other men, it meant the abandonment of them for
ever. If His heart was filled with earthly love, if
human affection bound Him to His mother and His
kindred, this simple act of baptism involved the
yielding up of them all upon the altar of service.
So completely to break with the past could not
have been easy for Jesus, as it could not be easy
for any man. Although our Evangelist tells us
nothing about His home life, yet we are assured it
was tender and sweet, pure and uplifting. We have
reason to believe He was fond of Nazareth. He
returned thither specially to speak to those with
whom He had been brought up. What emotions
must have filled His soul as He entered the old home
and the old synagogue endeared to Him by many
memories ! Yet all these earthly ties and associations
He renounced, in a very real way, when He went
down into the Jordan to be baptised.

But, positively, the baptism signified the entrance
of Jesus upon a new career. He was now responding
to the inward call that had come into His soul from
God Himself. It is quite clear He recognised this,
although it is extremely doubtful whether, at first,
He fully apprehended all that was involved in the
act. Unquestionably it did not signify less than
the consecration of Himself, with all the talents and
powers He possessed, to the work for which He had
been sent. In His case baptism, then, was in some
degree comparable with the ideal we have before
us in ordination. There was the same response to
an inward call ; a similar dedication of life with all
its powers to the work of God, and the uplifting of
His fellow-men. It is not improbable that Jesus did

82

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN- JESUS

not fully recognise the rough way in all its rugged-
ness over which His feet would have to tread ; but
even if He had, the result would have been just the
same. He would have remained true and responsive
to the call that the preaching of John had perhaps
awakened in Him. He must whole-heartedly .devote
Himself to the establishment of the Kingdom of
righteousness.

Possibly, too, this baptismal experience provided
a period of inquiry and self-examination for Jesus.
It hardly seems likely that any man, not even
excepting Him, could turn His back upon thirty
years of tranquil life in the village home and proceed
to live in an absolutely different manner, and to
engage upon work which hitherto was unfamiliar,
without considerable thought and anxiety. The
things of life that lay behind were familiar and
well known; the enterprise upon which He was
now engaged was indistinct and ill-defined ; un-
familiar and unexpected difficulties, and even dangers
might await Him. He was crossing the Rubicon
now, and it could not be done without much care-
ful and anxious consideration. To receive some mark
of Divine approval that would confirm Him in the
purpose He had taken in hand, that would establish
in His mind the conviction that He was doing right
in embarking upon this new work, was what He
greatly required at the moment. And so the
heavens were opened to His eye, and the Spirit in
the form of a dove descended upon Him. And, as
if to make assurance doubly sure, there came a voice
from heaven, " Thou art my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased." We trust we are not making
an undue appeal to the imagination in suggesting

83

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

that possibly Jesus was meditating along the lines
indicated above, and that, therefore, this message
was sent to Him from heaven to place His mind at
rest. Such an assurance given under such circum-
stances must have afforded Him great satisfaction.
In considering this whole subject of our Lord's
baptism, perhaps we are accustomed to dwell less
upon the opening heavens and the descent of the
Spirit, than upon the Voice from heaven with its
comforting testimony. We appear inclined to hurry
on to what we consider as definite and distinct
assurance regarding the person of Jesus from
heaven. Nevertheless, we do not well to pass over
lightly this descent of the Spirit. It may be
affirmed, without hesitation, that this was the last
and most important gift that Jesus required to
qualify Him fully for His holy office. Moreover,
it was in the line of ancient tradition that Messiah
was to be filled with the Spirit above measure : so
that this gift in itself was an indication, if it was
nothing more, that He was now acting in obedience
to a Divine impulse, and that the resources of
heaven were to be available in His great and glorious
work. Still, it is not likely that He would forget
the words of Zechariah : " Not by might, nor by
power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts "
(Zech. 4 6 ). Nor could there be any mistake as to
the meaning of the symbolism in this descent of the
dove. He was to go forward in the strength of
the Spirit, but it was a spirit of gentleness and
peace. This and nothing else can be the import
of this incident, viz. that He who possessed such
power must be meek and gentle in the exercise of it.
We have only to remember the difference in the

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

descent of the Spirit at Pentecost to realise the
intense significance this experience must have
possessed for Jesus.

Sometimes a great deal is involved in the right
translation of a verse ; a point of doctrine of con-
siderable importance may, for instance, depend upon
the use of a particular tense. A striking example of
this occurs in the first chapter. The eleventh verse
is given in the A.V. as follows : " And there came
a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased." R.V. :
" Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well
pleased." Menzies : " And a voice from the
heavens : Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I
have found pleasure." Morrison : " In thee I was
well pleased." The A.V. assimilates the reading
of St. Mark to that found in St. Matt. 3 17 , but
wrongly so. Neither of them accounts for the
tense of the verb, rendering it as a present, whereas
ev&wcgo-a is an Aorist. Menzies appears to take
it as equivalent to a perfect. Morrison, as above,
rightly as an Aorist. Swete comments on the use of
the Aorist here, saying it " does not denote merely
the historical process by which God came to take
pleasure in Jesus -' during his earthly life ' (Gould),
but rather the satisfaction of the Father in the Son
during the pre-existent life" (cf. John I 2 , I/ 24 ).
Morrison agrees. Menzies' note on the verse is
fuller and more instructive. He regards the title
as largely official. " The words e in thee have I found
pleasure', if expressive of Jesus' consciousness, would
state the grounds of His being thus set apart, and
might indicate that the official sonship into which
he was now to be placed was founded on the sonship

8s

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

of intimacy in which he had lived till now with
God. Without the private religious life by which
he learned so as to be able to teach others, how God
was to be addressed and served, and what was to be
expected from him, he could not have heard the
special call which now met his ear." He goes on
to discuss whether " beloved "can be taken in this
way, and whether it was not, as many think at the
time of the writing of the Gospels, a Messianic title.
He then proceeds : " In any case, we have before us
here a statement placed by the Evangelist at the
opening of his narrative, of what Jesus was. He
has no genealogy or narrative of the infancy, but he
here gives his readers to understand that the person
of whom he writes is the Messiah, and was hailed in
that capacity by a voice from heaven, i.e. by God
Himself, at the outset of his career."

Now that, of course, arises out of the words,
" Thou art my beloved Son" ; but one wonders if
the use of the Aorist evjonyo-a really implied the
pre-existence suggested by many in interpreting
this passage. It is certainly an important and
attractive idea, and confessedly we are not in a
position to deny it or perhaps to offer anything
better in its place. That need not prevent us from
pointing out its weakness and improbability as an
explanation. Does it not appear rather unlikely
that on this very important occasion when Jesus
was taking a step involving great decisions on His
part, a voice from heaven, God's voice, should
proclaim that He was well pleased with Him in His
pre-existent state ? If the conditions of that state
were such as we commonly suppose, Jesus could
never have had any doubt that God was well pleased

86

EARLIEST PORTRAIT OF THE MAN-JESUS

with Him therein ; the assurance would therefore
be superfluous, and bear no relation to the crisis in
which He was now placed. What He especially
required at this time was a voice to assure Him
that God was well pleased with Him in His present
state, and we believe this voice from heaven spoke
a message that had direct connection with the cir-
cumstances of the moment, so far as our Lord was
concerned. As the spiritual impulses awakened in
His soul, and He responded to the Divine call to
service and sacrifice, the limitations of human flesh
and understanding may have been partially obscuring
His Divine Sonship from Himself, and He may have
questioned whether all the thoughts which had passed
through His mind regarding that were really true. So
God's voice comes to Him, " Thou art my Son, my
well beloved," in answer to such questions, hesita-
tions, if we may not add even doubts, that con-
ceivably thus assailed Him at this crisis. And we
make the further suggestion, which can hardly be
regarded as improbable, that as He realised the work
that was given Him to do, as He began to apprehend
its great necessity and its urgent character, die
thought may have arisen that possibly He had
delayed too long in the quietness and seclusion of
His home at Nazareth ; that human ties and claims
had in the thirty years that lay behind pressed too
heavily upon Him, and too completely absorbed His
whole attention, while the real work for which He
came to earth remained unheeded. And so the
word from heaven, " in thee I was well pleased,"
would convey this satisfying message, that the
Father was perfectly satisfied with the work at
Nazareth, which was now of the past. That, in fact,

8?

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the time spent there had not been in vain, and the
work which He had accomplished there was such as
He ought to perform. Such an assurance as this would
be a great comfort to Jesus ; it would be inspiring
thus to know that in quitting the scenes of His
youth, and in laying aside the responsibilities that
rested upon Him in the home at Nazareth, He had
the approval of God. We know it is true to the
best teaching of Christianity, that the duties of
home are as sacred, and sometimes their claims are
as pressing, as more distinctly religious and public
ministrations. Jesus required just now to be certain
that in His past conduct in regard to family, home,
and friends He had acted rightly, and we think this
positive declaration was conveyed in the words,
" Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I was well
pleased."

CHAPTER IV

PREPARING FOR THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

THE immediate succession of the temptation of
Jesus upon His baptism has been regarded often as
an outstanding illustration of how the forces of evil
appear to be most alert and active after a period of
spiritual uplifting. It may be so, but it is quite
possible that in the case of Jesus the connection
between these two important events was due to a
different reason, and was also so close that the one
may be looked upon as, to some extent, the outcome
of the other. The temptation in each of the three
cases turns upon the words, " If thou be the Son of
God." As we have just now seen, that was the
thought that was exercising the mind of Jesus very
greatly at this stage, and concerning which the
voice from heaven gave Him assurance. We may
conclude that even that did not finish the struggle
in His mind ; or at any rate, if it did make Him
certain on the point, the aftermath of the struggle is
now being experienced in the Temptation. It could
not have been easy for Jesus to answer such questions
as probably suggested themselves at this time
" Whence have I come ? " " Who am I ? " " The
Son of God ? " " Yes ; but in what sense ? All men
in a measure are His sons. His beloved Son ? Am I

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

then Messiah ? If so, how shall I carry on Messiah's
work ? I am poor, without resources, and His
Kingdom is to be glorious. What means can I
employ in undertaking such formidable tasks ? "
These, and many questions like them, must have
thrust themselves directly, forward for His attention
at the beginning of His work, and perhaps the
story of the temptation indicates the sort of answers
He gave to them. He received in this temptation a
twofold challenge : (a) as to the validity of His call ;
(ft) as to the means He was to use in obeying it.

These two points become manifest when we
consider the narrative of the temptation as given
in Matt. 4 1 ' 11 and Luke 4 1 " 13 , but as we are to follow
the lead of St. Mark we do not require to be occupied
with so much detail. He gives us but few parti-
culars, and these are contained in the twelfth and
thirteenth verses of chapter I : " And immediately
the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he
was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of
Satan ; and was with the wild beasts ; and the
angels ministered unto him." We have here one
of those touches which show us the kinship of
Jesus to the human race. At nearly all the out-
standing crises of life, when men have to fight a
battle in which great and weighty issues are involved,
they must go out into the wilderness ; they must be
alone with their tempter ; or it may be in different
conditions they must be alone with their God.
Men who have had any experience of a break in
their life, although approaching only to a degree
that which was now taking place in the case of Jesus,
will understand how that He was impelled to go
forth into the desert, where He would not likely be

90

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

interrupted, and face the situation in all its sternness
and fight out the future course of life to a finish.
It is true, as we have seen, Mark is not much occupied
with the human side of Jesus, but we surely get an
impressive glimpse of that humanity here. Jesus at
this juncture is forced, as any of us would have
been forced in such a situation, to face the tempter
boldly. Perhaps our author is right in giving no
details of the temptations themselves. It cannot
be supposed that the forty days occupied in the
wilderness were fully consumed by the three tempta-
tions described by Matthew and Luke. These
possibly were three outstanding lines along which
our Lord was specially tried ; and Mark is perhaps
quite correct in leaving us with the impression that
our Lord was tempted for the full forty days.

Our Evangelist places this scene in a situation of
extreme loneliness; that appears to be his purpose
in giving the wilderness such prominence in his
story ; and to the casual reader the additional
reference to the wild beasts, which is peculiar to
our Gospel, will intensify the conceivable horrors of
the situation. It is doubtful, however, if these
points should be pressed; perhaps all that is
meant is that Jesus experienced this temptation in
comparative seclusion and isolation. We may be
sure He was urged to His greatest, most heroic
endurance by a full realisation of the issues at stake.
It was, we believe, in the year 1911 that Capt. Scott
made his gallant attempt to reach the South Pole.
The world has possibly forgotten the brave act of
Capt. Oates in March 1912 in connection with that
expedition. Being badly frost-bitten, he was unable
to walk, and had to be carried on a sledge. Realising,

9 1

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

however, that if his companions were to have any
chance of saving themselves they must not be
encumbered with his weight, and knowing also
that they would never abandon him, he quietly
slipped off the sledge and went out alone into the
wilderness of frost and snow to fight the great
adversary to the last. His self-sacrifice was necessary
for the salvation of his friends. So was it with Jesus
now. He was fighting alone, but there must have
been before His mind a consciousness that the
struggle was not simply a personal affair others
were irrevocably involved in it. To save others He
cannot save Himself. Even though we interpret
this temptation as only a question of ways and
means, it certainly implied that Jesus had to choose
the rough way and the apparently inadequate
means if He was to be true to the Divine Light
now breaking in His soul. There is a very old
tradition to the effect that on one occasion, when
our Lord as a child was playing at Nazareth, He
stretched out His arms, and His mother beheld the
shadow of a cross upon the ground, and the sword
of foreboding entered her heart afresh. Whether
there is any truth in that story or not who can
possibly say ? but it seems not unlikely that at this
early stage the shadow of a cross appeared before
Him, in this period of temptation. Even in a
question of the ways and means most suitable for
His future purpose, Jesus must have realised that if
He was to take up the Messianic work and prosecute
His claim in the way that appeared best to Him,
such a course would inevitably bring Him into
conflict with the Jewish hierarchy and national
leaders. He could also easily foresee that in a trial

92

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

of physical forces He must soon fall before His
opponents. The knowledge of the intense bitterness
of the cup He might yet require to drink was no
doubt not fully before Him, but it is not impossible
He had a foretaste of it while He was being tempted
in the wilderness.

Possibly they are not taking an exact and correct
view of "the temptation" who find in it a re-
sumption of the hostility between Satan and man,
commenced at the beginning with Adam the first
man, and now renewed in Jesus the second Adam.
This trial was manifestly peculiar to Jesus ; and it
would, we feel, be unjustifiable to suppose that it
was but a mere phase in the eternal struggle of
elemental moral principles. There are those who
are inclined to take the more moderate, and we may
say more modern view, and regard it as only in-
volving the important question of the employment
of the right means for carrying out the programme
Jesus had set before Him. Take one of the tempta-
tions as an illustration : He had up to this point
worked for His own livelihood. He had earned His
own bread as a Carpenter at Nazareth. It must
have been an anxious question with Him how He
would fare in the future, when He and those who
should become His disciples must depend upon the
benefactions of the charitable. "You can always
perform a miracle to save yourself from hunger,"
says the voice of the tempter. " Never," rejoins
Jesus ; "that power was not given to me to minister
to my own comfort. How could I become the
friend of the hungry, if I miraculously preserved
myself from hunger ? " To perform a miracle to
save Himself from the pain and suffering other men

93

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

had to endure, was not the way to reveal His strength,
or to prove to the world that He was the Messiah.

If we agree that the essence of the temptation is
found in a conflict in the mind of Jesus as to the
appropriate ways and means to be employed in His
future work in founding and establishing the
Messianic Kingdom, we are not, therefore, entitled
to conclude that this temptation was ethically
colourless. When two ways of obtaining an object
are before us, if one of them is morally higher than
the other, if we are to remain true to our ethical
consciousness, we must take the higher. This was
especially so in the case of Jesus. However hard,
unequal, toilsome, and disadvantageous the road for
Him might be, if it was the best, if it was God's way,
then it must be taken. Not to do so was to utterly
fail.

Formerly it was a favourite subject for Theological
Debating Societies to discuss whether it was possible
for Jesus to have fallen in this temptation. The
writer well remembers such a debate in which it was
contended that if Jesus had succumbed to tempta-
tion it would have proved that He was not Divine,
but because He was Divine He could not fail. The
answer that was given was " then the temptation was
only a farce and there was nothing real in it." But
Jesus was a man, and as such " He was tempted in
all points as we are." We need have no hesitation
in believing this was both a real and terrible experi-
ence in the life of our Lord, and that it involved a
conflict of great severity may be inferred from the
words of our author, "and the angels ministered
unto him."

It is very interesting to discover that St. Mark

94

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

does not give any Idea as to whether Jesus was
successful in this period of temptation. He leaves
that to be deduced from the narrative. We would
be left in considerable difficulty in dealing with this
whole incident if we had nothing but his Gospel to
depend upon. Perhaps this is because he knows that
the story that he is about to relate will best assure
the reader of the complete victory of Jesus. It is
difficult to account for the meagreness of detail in
connection with an incident that would have suited
his purpose so well in showing the power of our Lord
over the most formidable of His enemies. We can
only assume that the subject in St. Mark's day was
regarded as too sacred to be entered into fully, and
it was only in the next decade that it was discovered
how impressively it enhanced the glory of the Lord,
by showing that He could meet the adversary and
completely put him to silence at every point. The
account of the temptation closes the distinctively
introductory matter in St. Mark's Gospel.

Just exactly what happened immediately after the
temptation is not indicated by our Evangelist. We
might, of course, appeal to the other Gospels to
supply this deficiency, but that would not be keeping
strictly to the object before us, which is to consider
the Christology of the Earliest Gospel. It is
sufficient to indicate that at this point much of the
material found in the first few chapters of the
fourth Gospel might be introduced. It is quite
evident there is a break in the narrative at the end of
the thirteenth verse of St. Mark, and some scholars
believe that, with the beginning of the succeeding
verse, we come into direct contact with the influ-
ence of St. Peter as the informant and mentor of

95

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

St. Mark (so Salmon, p 75). This is very likely,
although there does not seem any insuperable
obstacle which could have prevented him from
having received from the Apostle most of the
particulars already given in the earlier verses, for
even supposing these did not come within Peter's
own personal experience, he could easily have learned
them from others, or from Jesus Himself. The
point is not of material importance. It is interest-
ing to find that the casting of John into prison
appeared to be a signal to Jesus that He was now
to enter upon His own public ministry. This,
of course, would suggest that He Himself under-
stood there was a relationship between His work
and that of John ; but that point has been before
us already.

Still, the significant fact that the Evangelists
represent Jesus as taking up the words of John at
the beginning of His preaching, must be dwelt
upon for a moment. St. Mark gives very few
particulars of the Baptist's preaching as compared
with St. Matthew, yet he shows distinctly that Jesus
began to preach precisely the same doctrines as
John ; adopting at first, indeed, identical language.
It is perfectly legitimate to infer that this implied
an intended continuity in the reformatory work
begun by the latter. It would appear to have
been necessary in the circumstances, that a very
definite relationship should be established between
them, so far as their work was concerned. If the
one was the forerunner of the Other, if Jesus was the
fulfilment of John's message, then there must have
been an evident connection and harmony in their
preaching and teaching. All this is indeed implied

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

in the very first words uttered by Jesus in His public
ministry;, as recorded by St. Mark. " Now after
that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and
saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of
God is at hand : repent ye, and believe the Gospel "
(i 14t ). Cf. Matt. 3 lf -, " In those days came John
the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
and saying, Repent ye : for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand."

It is to be expected from the character of the
Gospel upon which we are engaged that we do not
get the same full details of the preaching of Jesus in
it, which we discover in the other Synoptic writers.
Most people are familiar with the important place
that the teaching occupies in St. Matthew and
even in St. Luke. Still, we find that the doctrine
of the Kingdom of God receives here the same
prominence as is accorded to it in the other Gospels.
Yet, notwithstanding the emphasis laid upon this
idea by all the Evangelists, it is somewhat extra-
ordinary to find that no exact definition of the
Kingdom is forthcoming. To obtain an adequate
idea of it, it is necessary to gather together -die
whole teaching of Jesus on the subject, and from
this endeavour to form such a conception as shall
fully comprehend that teaching. Yet, even when
that is attempted, the results which were expected
may not appear, because it may be found extremely
difficult to blend certain passages that sound in-
harmonious one with another. It will be sufficient
for our present purpose to indicate the points
dealt with in St. Mark's Gospel, without entering
into any detailed discussion of the passages ; because

97 7

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to do so would lead us too far away from the main
theme of our subject.

1. The Kingdom is at hand (i 15 ).

2. ,, a unity (inferred from 3 24fi> ).

3. illustrated by parables (4 11 ).
(a) Like seed sown secretly (4 26 ~ 29 ).

() Like a grain of mustard seed (4 30 ' 34 ).

4. Some of those then living were to see the
Kingdom coming with power (9 1 ).

5. Men should suffer loss that they may enter into
the Kingdom (9 4 ~ 7 ).

6. It is to be received in childlike simplicity ( I O 14t ) .

7. Riches a hindrance to entering therein (io 23ff -).

8. Love to God and men brings us near to the
Kingdom (i5 34 ).

9. Perhaps we might say, It is the perfecting of
heavenly communion (i4 25 ).

10. The Kingdom was an expectation of many in
Israel (i5 43 ). (See on this also Luke 2 25 ' 38 .)

Even these references show us the prominence
and importance which the idea of the Kingdom
receives in the Earliest Gospel, and enable us to
appreciate the emphatic declarations regarding it in
the preaching and teaching of Jesus. The enuncia-
tion of the Kingdom certainly appears somewhat
sudden and unexpected, still it was neither an
unusual nor unfamiliar thought to those whom
Jesus was addressing. It is not at all probable that
He would have commenced His public teaching
with some strange and unknown reference, which
would not have been understood by His hearers.
There is no doubt, as can be seen from No. 10
above, that, in His preaching on this subject He

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

began by working upon an idea that was well known,
and which was possibly occupying the Jewish mind
a great deal about this time. Menzies says: "The
notion that God Himself should rule over a people
thoroughly prepared to serve Him, is of old standing
in Jewish thought and is found in psalms and
prophets " (p. 64). Nevertheless, it is safe to
affirm that Jesus was not depending upon con-
temporary Jewish thought for His doctrine of the
Kingdom. Indeed it appears from Edersheim's
chapter on the " Sermon on the Mount," " The
Kingdom of Christ and Rabbinic Teaching " (Life
and Times of Jesus the Messiah" cap. xviii. vol. i.),
that He could not have received practically any help
from the Rabbinic writings in the development of
this doctrine. Whence, then, did He receive it ?
Undoubtedly, as Menzies asserts, from the psalms
and the prophets. In His preaching on this sub j ect
He does what He also accomplishes when He
proceeds to His interpretation of the law He
resurrects the dead and practically forgotten truths
of the past. He brings to light the sublime utter-
ances of prophet and seer that had remained hidden
and long neglected among the rubbish of Jewish
tradition, and clothes them anew in language that
gives them fresh vitality and power. Yet tie idea
of a reign of God upon the earth was a familiar
one to the Jews. Their rabbis painted Him as really
having the Torah in His right hand; instead,
Jesus gave to men the royal law of brotherliness
" All things whatsoever ye would that men should
do. to you, do ye even so to them " (Matt. 7 12 )
and reveals to them God as the Perfect Father
in Heaven. In regard to the preaching of Jesus

99

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

generally, it might, we think, be justifiable to
assert that frequently all that He owed to the past
was but a skeleton, and to this He gave flesh and
blood, and infused it with the vital spark of living
and abiding truth.

Perhaps the subject that we might say came
second in the preaching of Jesus was that of repent-
ance. This inevitably arose out of His teaching
concerning the Kingdom. If God was to come and
establish such a reign among men; if He was to
appear and introduce a personal rule upon earth,
then there must be a proper preparation for His
coming. His subjects ought to be in a right
condition to receive Him. What that condition
was, Jesus makes quite plain by the first public
word almost that He proclaimed: "The time is
fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand:
repent ye, and believe the Gospel." The justifica-
tion of His enunciation of the Kingdom and His
call for repentance make it manifest that He
regarded these two subjects as closely related.
Although there is very little indication to be found
in St. Mark's Gospel of the importance of repentance,
it cannot be questioned that it occupied as prominent
a place in the teaching of Jesus, as it appeared to
have done in that of John. Even in this Gospel,
the few passages which refer to it are extremely
suggestive. In addition to the one quoted above,
we have only two other precise references to this
subject in the work before us. One of these,
however, must have fallen upon the ears of some
of those who heard it with great comfort and
hopefulness ; and it would be no exaggeration to
affirm that it has been an inspiration to 'many a

100

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

weary and heavily laden sinner since : " I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance " (2 17 ).
In the other Synoptics this grace of repentance
receives much more conspicuous attention ; in both
of them, indeed, Jesus becomes the " Friend of
publicans and sinners " ; but in the words just
quoted from Mark, there is such an emphatic
declaration of His purpose, such an evident apprehen-
sion of the necessities of the situation, as leads us
to understand the emphasis He must often have
given to the subject when preaching to the people.
This declaration, moreover, reveals to some extent
the religious condition which Jesus was now
encountering in His public ministry. There was
apparently (i) a section of the community regarding
which it was generally agreed, evidently for various
reasons, that such persons especially required to
repent ; these were known and commonly spoken
of as " sinners." It is not, however, to be under-
stood that they were notable evil-doers. It is
much more likely they represented that class among
the people which had ceased to be punctilious in
the observance of their ritualistic and ceremonial
duties, or even those who did not, perhaps, attend
the synagogues very regularly. The publicans
might be regarded as a kind of sub-class of these :
the great objection against them was that they were
engaged in the work of collecting taxes, which was
no more popular then than it is now. Such people
were referred to as " sinners " by the stricter
ceremonialists and more scrupulous observers of
the traditions of the elders. (2) These latter formed
what we might call the second class; they were
among those upon whom the teaching of Jesus

101

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

appeared to have but little effect. They were
self-satisfied, and thought they required nothing
that He could give. Still, the call which He
addressed to sinners, urging them to repent, must
have had an arresting and even hopeful effect upon
many of the despised and down- trodden the poor
and rejected of that time. Both the social and
ecclesiastical outcasts of those days must have been
drawn to this Man who spoke to them so kindly,
and pleaded with them so tenderly. We will do
well, therefore, to observe how prominently Jesus
sets this call to repentance in the forefront, right
at the beginning of His work. As John the Baptist
prepared His way, so was He now, by this teaching,
preparing the way for the coming of the Kingdom.
Repentance was necessary for the remission of sins ;
and this in turn was indispensable for entrance into
the Kingdom. Purity must prevail if God was to
reign among men.

The only other passage in which repentance is
referred to in this Gospel so far as any relation to
Jesus is concerned, is in 6 12 , where it is written the
disciples " went out and preached that men should
repent." It will be noticed that the connection
with our Lord in this case is indirect. We may
certainly assume the disciples were true students,
and devoted imitators of their Master. What He
had preached to the people they must declare also.
It is to be supposed that the theme which made
itself most impressive on themselves was the one
they were likely to emphasise when they commenced
preaching on their own account, and it is rather
surprising to discover that this was not the coming
of the Kingdom, as we would have expected,' but the

IO2

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

necessity for repentance. Indeed, even after the
crucifixion and resurrection this was still the
case; generally the burden of apostolic preaching
was " repentance toward God and faith toward our
Lord Jesus Christ " (Acts 2O 21 ). Only faint refer-
ences, if any at all, are found in the Epistles of
James, Peter, and John to the Kingdom, and even
in the fourth Gospel, which we agree was written
late, allusions to it are neither prominent nor
important. There are, it is true, distinct references
in the Acts and Pauline Epistles. Still, it is quite
justifiable to assert that the main theme in the
preaching of the disciples and those immediately
associated with them, was repentance rather than
the realisation of the Kingdom. One wonders
whether the effect of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
may not have had some influence in subduing the
imperialistic note in the preaching about that
time.

In proclaiming the approach of the Kingdom of
God, Jesus, perhaps, first called for repentance;
but immediately, and we might say indissolubly,
associated with that was the call for faith, " repent
ye, and believe the Gospel." Although we are
now giving faith the same sequence as we find in
Mark I 15 , there is no intention to draw any com-
parison as to the relative importance of these
virtues or doctrines. It might be quite correct to
affirm that there cannot, in the end, be true repent-
ance without faith ; neither can there be true faith
without repentance. Jesus does not, in His preach-
ing, draw any comparison between these two
spiritual graces, but in the Gospel before us, faith
is much more frequently and prominently mentioned

103

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

than repentance. It is rather instructive to find
that in it also, although it is the shortest of the
Gospels, faith and belief are as frequently referred to
as in either Matthew or Luke. Taking both words
together, they are found in Matthew seventeen
times, in Mark eighteen, and the same in Luke.
The word faith is discovered nine times in
Matthew, five in Mark, and eleven in Luke. Be-
lieve is consequently used oftener in Mark than
by the other two. The word faith is not .found
in John ; he always uses believe. It is significant
to observe that to some extent Mark and John thus
approach each other in their use of words ; we shall
have occasion to refer to this point later.

That Jesus would lay the greatest possible
emphasis upon faith is to be expected when we
consider the nature of the work upon which He
was engaged. He was proclaiming the approach of
a Kingdom that was non-material, and, therefore,
largely obscure and intangible. It is certainly
possible the use of the phrase " the Kingdom of
God " suggested to most of the people who heard it,
at any rate at the first, something that was visible,
an organisation having power and resources within
it. Indeed it is not unlikely that the words signified
to some of them a restored, purified, and more
glorious dominion for Israel. " When the Jews of
Jesus' time spoke of the Kingdom of God, they
thought of a world-power which should throw off
the hated yoke of the Roman oppression " (Stevens,
The Teaching of Jesus, p. 59). But the Kingdom
which Jesus was proclaiming and establishing now
was "not of this world" (John l8 36 ) ; it was
spiritual, and so it required faith as a medium for

104

THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM

its apprehension and realisation. A great deal of
His work actually required to be taken on trust.
Many of His promises to the disciples, and to the
people, could only have fulfilment in a future life.
In fact, we may conclude that everything in the
situation, as it then existed, would incline Jesus to
give faith a foremost place in His preaching. It
needed to be exercised not only in His word, but
also in respect of His work. Unless faith were
present He could do no mighty works ; and in the
presence of rank unbelief He was impotent. With
faith, however, all things were possible. His own
life was one of faith. His power appeared to be
dependent to a considerable extent on complete
and perfect confidence in God His Father. The
work in which He now found Himself engaged was
essentially a religious movement. However men
may have misunderstood this, it was always clearly
^before His own mind ; and faith was then, as it
still is, one of the foundation stones of religion.
Without it Jesus knew the Kingdom never could
have been established, and progress in His under-
taking would have been impossible. It was the great
aim of His life to enkindle and foster faith in His
disciples and those who came to hear Him. There *
is a multitude of passages that might be cited in
support of that ; nothing indeed is plainer in all the
Gospels.

105

CHAPTER V

PARABLES AND PREACHING

HAVING considered very briefly some of the more
important topics that occupied Jesus in His preach-
ing, it may be opportune at this point if we en-
deavour to obtain some idea of the style which
Jesus adopted in this department of His work.
Most men gifted with preaching power stamp
their individuality on their utterances. Jesus has
certainly done so in a remarkable degree. In the
parabolic style sometimes adopted by Him in His
teaching, He has no rivals. Very few have even
dared to attempt this method in their public
teaching, and not even the very best attempts are
worthy to be compared with the parables of our
Lord in their inimitable sublimity, illustrative
forcefulness, and beautiful simplicity. Not one of
the disciples or followers of Jesus appears to have
thought of imitating Him in this direction ; no
doubt they all realised the hopelessness of such an
attempt. The few modern efforts to introduce this
style, which have been made from time to time,
have not been very successful. It is worth our
while to remind ourselves at this point that Jesus
was only a Galilean peasant in one aspect of His
life, and never enjoyed the intellectual opportunities

1 06

PARABLES AND PREACHING

common to our day. Yet in this one characteristic
of His literary style He is utterly unapproachable in
beauty of conception and simplicity of form. The
volume of parabolic material in the Earliest Gospel
is not great only some five or six parables being
recorded in it, although we may rest assured St.
Peter remembered many more than those preserved
therein. It is the old explanation, St. Mark is
occupied with deeds rather than words. Only one
of the number just mentioned can be put in the
class of the more important and lengthy parables.
This is " the sower " (4 3ff -). The others are " the
strong man " (3 27 ) ; " the seed growing secretly,"
illustrative of the unostentatious progress of the
Kingdom (4 26a ) ; " grain of mustard seed," reveal-
ing the growth and power of the Kingdom (4 30ff -) ;
"' on defilement " against ceremonial purification
which neglects inward purity (y 15 ) ; and " wicked
husbandmen," or Jewish rejection of God's grace,
and cruel treatment of His servants (I2 1 ' 11 ). The
style of the parables may well suggest the question
whether in His preaching Jesus used any very
lengthy form of address such as would correspond
with the modern sermon. It is rather instructive
to discover that nearly all His utterances are of the
crisp and concise class that would readily take hold
of die mind of His hearers, and be retained in their
memories. There are many probabilities indicating
that He frequently expounded portions of the Old
Testament which were read in the synagogue.
But even then the great object, undoubtedly, was
to produce a practical effect rather than a purely
intellectual one. He certainly desired to instruct,
but still more He was anxious to bring conviction

107

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

home to those who heard Him. We may well infer,
then, from the parables as from other forms of
utterance He may have employed, that His supreme
object was to impart the truth in all its fulness,
with convincing power ; to produce a moral and
spiritual effect upon those who heard Him.

Having dealt with some of the more important
subjects that occupied Jesus as a preacher, we may
now extend our research into a wider and more
general field. And first of all, we may observe that
it is possible there were topics in His preaching
of which no record has been preserved. Certainly
we have reason to believe that this is so in regard
to St. Mark's Gospel, because he gives us so little
of it ; but it is also true in regard to the other
Evangelists, who give us fuller details of this aspect
of His ministry. The author of the fourth Gospel
states quite definitely that he has only given a
selection of the doings of Jesus (2i 25 ) ; the same
would no doubt be true about His sayings. We
cannot consider any of the Gospels as exhaustive in
regard to these matters. Neither in respect of the
word spoken, nor the work performed, could they
possibly represent a full record of a ministry of three
years. It is almost a waste of time, then, to strive
to interpret the so-called silence of Jesus, for the
simple reason that we do not know if He was silent
concerning the particular topic in which we are for
the moment interested. Yet, sometimes, even well-
informed people, and New Testament scholars, too,
try to fill in this supposed silence, or at any rate to
explain it with much detail. It certainly may be a
good exercise of the imagination, but the most
elaborate theories may only be trifles, light as the

108

PARABLES AND PREACHING

airy foundations upon which they rest. As an
illustration of such a method of interpretation, let
us suppose that we have only the Gospel by St. Mark
before us. Knowing from it that Jesus was a man
of prayer Himself, we might begin to theorise as to
why He did not teach His disciples to P ra y- Yet
Matthew and Luke show us how different the
situation actually was, and reveal how careful He
was to instruct His followers in this very important
duty. Well, with even all the Gospels before us,
we cannot be sure that Jesus never referred to a
subject because no mention of it is found in them.
It need not be supposed that He was not a profound
teacher, even though there is very little didactic
matter in the Earliest Gospel. The silence of the
Gospel is a different affair altogether. There may
have been many reasons why a particular author
has not recorded some special incident. We may
regret, then, this meagreness of the record in Mark
as to the preaching and teaching of Jesus, and may
even wish to search out a cause in explanation of it ;
but we need have no hesitation in assuring ourselves,
at this point, that it was not because either Jesus
or Mark undervalued preaching. That is clear
enough from I 38 , where the former answers Peter
and those who were with him, " Let us go into the
next towns, that I may preach there also : for
therefore came I forth." We shall require to
examine this statement in another connection later
on, and so do not dwell upon it here.

Although the details are not very abundant, yet
with St. Mark's guidance we can form a picture of
Jesus as a preacher which should be attractive, and
even very suggestive. We have been occupied just

109

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

now considering briefly the beginning of His
missionary labours, and striving to obtain some
information as to His methods. The material at our
disposal in this connection is sufficient to show that
in this work He followed the usual methods
those, indeed, that are often pursued with con-
siderable success at the present day. He appealed
to the minds and souls of men, He strove to bring
home conviction of sin, and to lead them to
repentance and faith. We may presume that He
found this the best means of presenting to them
the truths of that Gospel He desired to proclaim.
And although it cannot be denied that there was
considerable excitement in connection with His
missionary labours, yet it could not be truly said
that His methods were those of the sensationalist.
The great object He set before Him was to bring
men from unbelief to faith in the Living God,
from a life of sin to one of holiness, from greed and
selfishness to righteousness and justice.

Are there any data that would enable us to form
a true idea whether Jesus was successful as a
missionary and preacher ? If we could be satisfied
on that point, it might help us in coming to the
conclusion that it would be advisable to imitate
Him in His methods. There is an initial difficulty
which we must first dispose of : it is this, What is the
criterion we are to employ in testing whether the
work of our Lord was or was not successful ? It is
a very common modern method to take the number
of those who profess conversion in connection with
any particular mission, and in this way to form an
estimate of its success or failure. Judged by this
standard, what can we conclude in reference to the

no

PARABLES AND PREACHING

work of Jesus ? Generally speaking, the tone of
all the Gospels leaves us with the impression that
the number of actual believers in Him during His
earthly life was not very considerable. There is
no doubt, for a period, the crowds flocked to hear
Him, and the multitudes thronged round Him and
His disciples, and (Mark 2 4 ) considerable success
appeared to attend His efforts at first. But it is
quite apparent that all this enthusiasm did not
last. St. John tells us : " many of his disciples
went back, and walked no more with him " (6 66 ).
When the supreme crisis of His life came, St. Mark
informs us : " they all forsook him and fled " (i4 50 ).
Very few names are mentioned in connection with
the period of the crucifixion ; at this time it is very
probable that the number of believers, at any rate
in Jerusalem, was extremely small. If we take a
show of hands then, to use that expression, it does
not appear that we could count up a large company
of professed followers of Jesus at the close of His
earthly ministry, and the conclusion may seem
inevitable that, regarded from this standpoint, His
missionary labours were a comparative failure. We
may pause a moment, however, before we absolutely
commit ourselves to such a position. There is an
important passage in Acts I 15 which, perhaps,
deserves some consideration in this connection. It
informs us that " Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples (the number of names together were about
an hundred and twenty)." Many people of thought,
following De Wette, have come to the conclusion
that this was the total number of the Christian
Church at this time. And, possibly, many a lesson
has been deduced from this verse not complimentary

in

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to the faith, steadfastness, nor understanding of that
generation. Are we bound to accept this interpreta-
tion of the words quoted above ? We think not.
It seems much more probable that the author of
Acts means the number of those gathered about
Jerusalem at this time was one hundred and twenty.
He is, for the moment, dealing with the events which
took place in and around that city immediately conse-
quent upon the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
It is quite likely, indeed almost certain, that there
were many other disciples in Galilee. Moreover, the
number at Jerusalem, in view of the circumstances,
was not so very insignificant ; there was a good deal
of loyalty and determination represented by these
one hundred and twenty souls. Neither must we
forget the thousands who flocked into the Church
immediately after Pentecost. We may well believe
these multitudes represented the harvest resulting
from His previous sowing, for even in the case of
Jesus it was true " one soweth and another
reapeth " (John 4 37 ). It cannot be supposed the
work in Galilee would immediately disappear, or be
utterly dissipated, as soon as Jesus removed Himself
from that sphere of operations. It is certainly rather
singular that that province is not mentioned in
Acts i 8 , which may be regarded as giving the
appointed field for future missionary operations.
" But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy
Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses
unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
Those commentaries we have been able to consult
do not appear to notice that Galilee is omitted in
this verse. This is a silence that may possibly be

112

PARABLES AND PREACHING

explained, for the omission is very striking. It is
most natural to expect that the provinces should
have been named in their order Judaea, Samaria,
Galilee, and " unto the uttermost part of the earth."
We can only hazard the opinion that Galilee is not
specially mentioned because there was no danger of
it being overlooked. The other provinces, we know,
had not received the same attention as had been
bestowed upon it : Jesus and the disciples had
laboured diligently there ; the latter were bound
to it by many ties ; it would not, therefore, be
neglected. But may we not add there was less need
for evangelistic effort in Galilee ? It had had its
day of grace under the most favourable circum-
stances, and there can be little doubt Galileans were
the backbone of the Church at first. We may not be
able to estimate in figures the work of Jesus as a
missionary, but these considerations ought to satisfy
us that the total body of believers at His death must
have far exceeded the one hundred and twenty
mentioned in Acts I 15 .

But really no spiritual effort can be satisfactorily
measured by numbers. This is a clear inference
from the words of Jesus : " For what shall it profit
a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his
own soul ? Or what shall a man give in exchange
for his soul ? " (Mark 8 36f -). If the value of one
human soul is so incomparable, it may be considered
that the estimating of results of modern missionary
efforts by counting the numbers of those who
profess to have been influenced, is not a trustworthy
method. Jesus never practised it. To have per-
formed the good acts that He accomplished, to have
been the instrument in turning many sinners from

113 8

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

darkness into light, to have laid the foundations of
the kingdom of heaven upon earth, to have sown
the seed of Divine truth so that it brought in such a
rich and even abundant fruit that certainly affords
ample assurance of the great success of His missionary-
undertakings ; and no follower could possibly do
better than adopt His methods.

But there is something even more positive than
that. St. Mark indicates frequently the remarkable
impression that Jesus created by His doctrine and
teaching. Perhaps there is no other verse in the
whole narrative that shows more distinctly the effect
of the preaching of Jesus upon the people than 1 22 :
" And they were astonished at his doctrine, for
he taught them as one that had authority, and not
as the scribes." The same idea of astonishment at
the authoritative note in the teaching of Jesus is
found in i 27 , 2 12 , 4 41 , 5 20 , 5 42 , 6 2 , y 37 , 9 15 , n 18 .
Some of these references (2 12 , 4 41 , 5 20 , 5 42 , 7 37 , 9 15 )
are distinctly associated with miraculous works ;
but even so, the astonishment is caused by the
power in the word of Jesus. Chapter 1 22 is the centre
of the position, and the others are for the most part
a repetition of it. Salmon in The Human Element
in the Gospels draws attention to the peculiarity of
the parallel passages in St. Luke 4 32 : "And they
were astonished at his teaching, for his word was
with power." He suggests that Luke did not take
the same interpretation of the record in Mark as is
commonly received, but inferred that the power or
authority was to exorcise demons : " In St. Luke's
report we find eov<rla attributed to our Lord in
His character, not of a teacher, but an exorciser of
demons. He seems to have in view, not the

114

PARABLES AND PREACHING

authority which our Lord exercised over the hearers,
who were bound meekly to receive His instructions,
but over the demons, who were compelled to obey
the commands which He had power to enforce."
Perhaps there is a good deal of truth in that view ;
in most cases where it is mentioned, this astonishment
is associated with a miracle. But we are not sure
that Salmon quite accurately represents the situa-
tion. If St. Mark's order of events is to be taken
here and relied upon strictly, verse I 22 indicates
astonishment that followed upon the preaching of
Jesus alone, in the synagogue at Capernaum, and
before any miracle was performed. It must, there-
fore, refer to the authoritative manner of His
preaching, and doubtless the intention is to show
that in this respect it was different from the scribes.
The fresh amazement indicated in verse 27 is in
consequence of the miracle. It is scarcely likely
that the Evangelist would have written these two
verses so closely together with exact reference to
the same circumstance, and it is noticeable that he
deliberately makes verse 27 refer to the miracle.
Prof. Curtis in his lectures on the passage sug-
gested ef ova-la meant " spiritual power " : " The
descent of the Spirit brought ebi/<r/a, authorisation,
hence our word { licence ' in connection with
ministerial functions. This eouo-/a is in turn
delegated to Apostles (Mark 6 7 , I3 44 ; John I 12 )."
But he further pertinently remarks that " teaching
exercises authority. The charm of the teaching of
Jesus had much to do with the miracle. To the
outsider the miracle would be Svvafus- to Jesus it
was efowr/a, power, authority." But manifestly,
there must have been authority and power in the

"5

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

word of Jesus or there would have been no miracle.
It is quite clear that this is the dominant note that
struck on the ear of St. Mark, and as it is the one
which sounds possibly clearest and most distinctly
throughout the whole Gospel, we are not, therefore,
surprised to find it here in connection with the
opening of the work of Jesus. Fairly interpreted,
verse 22 of chapter I draws attention to the fact
that there was something very positive in the
teaching of our Lord, and that it took hold upon
the mind of the hearer, as we could expect, almost
irresistibly. That His preaching and teaching gave
much satisfaction to those who heard Him is
abundantly made evident from other incidents and
passages. In 6* we are informed that in Nazareth,
His own village, people were astonished at His
teaching. Perhaps one of the best testimonies to
His work in this respect is found in I2 37 , " and the
common people heard him gladly." Our point
is surely well established that verse I zz refers to His
preaching in the synagogue at Capernaum, and
shows us the result of that preaching was such as to
create amazement in those who heard the discourse.
It is our great loss that even one of these synagogue
sermons has not been preserved, although it may be
presumed it would not have differed very materially
from the doctrines which we otherwise possess.

It will be appropriate here to notice the im-
portance that Jesus attached to preaching. He
appears to have given it the foremost place in His
own public work. Incidentally, we have already
referred to the words of 1 39 , deferring a more detailed
consideration of them ; it will be suitable to take
them up at this point. " Let us go into the next

116

PARABLES AND PREACHING

towns, that I may preach there also : for therefore
came I forth." The circumstances apparently
indicate that Jesus, having engaged in a great deal
of healing work in Capernaum, had retired to rest.
But rising up during the darkness of the night, He
went away into a lonely place and engaged in
prayer. When daylight arrived the people began
again to crowd round the house in which He had
found a lodging (probably Peter's), but only to
discover that He had already gone away. Even
Peter and those with him seem to have been
astonished at this movement on the part of their
Master ; they were quite pleased with what had
taken place at Capernaum on the evening before.
They set out in search of Jesus, and having found
Him, " they said unto him, All men seek for
thee," and to them Jesus replied as above.

Now, on any interpretation of this passage it
shows us that Jesus laid the greatest possible emphasis
upon the office of preaching. This was to have
first claim upon His own strength, time, and
opportunity. And we are also quite justified by
the circumstances of the case just now narrated, in
concluding that He considered preaching the Gospel
of more importance than performing what we call
miracles. This decision may, of course, astonish us ;
and there are perhaps people who would be disposed
to believe our Lord acted somewhat hastily in
coming to the conclusion not to return to Capernaum
at this time and take the tide there at its flow.
Such an opinion, however, can only be the product
of a superficial view of the situation. He might
certainly have dazzled men's eyes by wonderful
deeds, and through such means created even a

117

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

wider interest in Himself and His movement. But
it is doubtful if that would have been a real gain,
or would have been of permanent advantage in the
furtherance of His main purpose. The whole
history of the race shows that the only effective
way to influence a man's soul is by an appeal to his
reason. Jesus recognises this in His adoption of
preaching as the best means for the propagation of
the principles of His Kingdom.

But the real problem of verse I 38 lies in a different
direction, and may be discovered in the clause " for
thereforth came I forth." What exactly do these
words mean ? There are two possible interpreta-
tions : (i) that the words simply refer to His coming
out from Capernaum that morning; (2) that they
indicate one, at least, pf the supreme reasons for
His coming forth from the Father, i.e. really for
His incarnation. In regard to the first view, Menzies
says in his note on the passage : " He had come out
in order to continue the work of preaching in the
neighbouring towns." This is fairly non-committal,
and so is the most of the paragraph. But this
sentence and the general tone of the note leads us
to infer that he favours the idea of De Wette, who
takes the words to mean a reference to coming out
of Capernaum. Meyer thinks they refer to His
coming out of the house ; Fritzsche " for to this end
came I out (into the desert place)." Now, as the
words spoken by Jesus on this occasion may have
considerable Christological significance, we require
to examine these statements. They all look very
satisfactory on the surface, but will they sufficiently
account for the situation ? Jesus takes His de-
parture from Capernaum while it is yet dark. He

118

PARABLES AND PREACHING

retires to a secluded place and spends hours of this
darkness in prayer, leaving His disciples, whom He
had but recently called, without a word of explana-
tion. " Let us go into the other towns and villages "
indicates quite plainly that He intended the disciples
to go along with Him. Why did He thus leave them
behind ? Quite evidently He wanted to be away
from Capernaum before the crowd gathered in the
morning. Why did He wish to avoid the people ?
When Simon and those with him tell about the
multitudes seeking Him, are we to understand
what Jesus said was, " Oh, let us go into the other
towns and villages that I may preach there also ; that
is why I hurried out of Capernaum out of the house,
and into the desert. It was not to escape the
crowd, it was not because of any circumstance in
the city it was only that I was in a hurry to preach
elsewhere " ? Would anyone who had not an object
to serve accept this as an adequate explanation of
the words " for therefore came I forth " ? We are,
to some extent, reaching a climax in the situation
that is being set before us in this part of the narrative.
Great things had been done in Capernaum the day
before, much interest and excitement had been
awakened. On the morrow, the enthusiasm of the
crowd had not abated, but Jesus cannot be found.
When He is discovered and told " All men seek thee.
Come down into the town, the people are waiting
eagerly," it is asking too much to expect us to
believe Jesus said, " I am going to preach elsewhere,
and that is the reason why I hurried out of
Capernaum." Or, if we are forced to accept that,
then it will be to recognise that Jesus felt a great
necessity laid upon Him of going forward to preach

119

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the Gospel of the Kingdom wherever He could;
that He was impelled to scatter the truth over
as wide an area as possible, because the time was
short and the field was wide. But what force was
impelling Him ? It must have been because He
felt He was thus interpreting the will of the Father
that in thus coming forth He was fulfilling His
appointed destiny. Well, that brings us near to
the second interpretation of the words " for therefore
came I forth," which we shall notice in a moment.
It is, however, pertinent to add that if Jesus only
implied by these words that preaching was to be
His supreme mission, He surely had most abundant
opportunities in Capernaum still. He appears to
have been in that city but one day, and to have
preached only once in the synagogue ; there was
plenty of opportunity for evangelistic labour still
to be carried on in it. He did not require to seek
a field in the less sparsely populated country districts.
It is quite clear, Jesus recognises that in the call to
Capernaum that was now being urged upon Him
there was a demand made that did not seem in
harmony with His mission in coming into the
world. The explanation is not by any means so
simple as the foregoing references suggest.

(2) A great many scholars take the words " for
therefore came I forth " as expressing the mission
that Jesus had appointed to Him in coming into this
world. Morrison says : " The Saviour came forth
from His invisible condition into the world ' to
this end? . . . The expression came I forth or
came I out was probably used by our Saviour with
intentional indefiniteness." " He came out from
the Father" (John 8 42 , I3 3 , i6 27f -). Salmon says:

1 20

PARABLES AND PREACHING

" The last clause of our Lord's answer, ? TOVTO
yap egfiXQov, might be understood in a different
sense from that given them by St. Luke in his
version, eiri TOVTO aTreerrdXrjv. We might con-
nect the etyXOov of Mark I 35 with the efy\Qov of
verse 38, and might understand OUT Lord as
telling Simon and Andrew that it was with the
view of preaching elsewhere that He had left their
house in the morning. But since St. Luke regards
the verse as addressed to the crowds, it can have no
other than its higher meaning " (p. 107). Swete :
" The Lord's primary mission was to proclaim the
Kingdom (i 14 ) ; dispossessing demoniacs and healing
the sick were secondary and in a manner accidental
features of His work. . . . egfiXOov does not refer
to His departure from Capernaum (v. 35), but to
His mission from the Father (John 8 42 , I3 3 ) ;
whether it was so understood at the time by the
disciples is of course another question " (p. 27).
Prof. Curtis, ? TOVTO yap etyXdov ; Luke, a7re<rTa\ijv t
" I was sent, and I came forth. Here the meaning
seems to be Jesus' mission, i .*. to preach. Not even
healing is to be allowed to come between Him and
His mission to preach a message " (Notes of Lectures).
Perhaps the earliest commentary we have on these
words in Mark is found in the corresponding passage
in Luke 4 42f - We there find that the crowd followed
Jesus, and wished Him to stay with them ; but
" he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of
God to other cities also : for therefore am I sent."
This, we may be sure, was the interpretation given
to the words in the days when the third Gospel
was written, and that surely makes the interpretation
in the higher sense decisive.

121

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Possibly, however, what has induced certain
scholars not to accept this high interpretation is
what is involved in it ; for if we adopt it, then the
inference of the pre-existence of Jesus seems inevit-
able ; and we are not prepared for that here, indeed
we hardly expect it in this Gospel. If Jesus " was
sent," He must have been sent by some One from
somewhere, at some time, to keep to the most
general terms. Or if " He came forth," similarly
He must have come from somewhere, at some
earlier period. So that, if we take Luke's word or
Mark's, it really comes to the same thing in the
end ; underlying this phrase " for therefore came I
forth," there is manifestly the idea of pre-existence.
We expect that in the latest Gospel, but not in this
the earliest. Yet it does not quite stand alone,
even in St. Mark's Gospel. We may refer again to
the word evSoKtja-a (i 11 ) at the baptism, and to
the fact that many explain the presence of the
Aorist as involving also the idea of pre-existence.
It may be so, although when dealing with the point
we made some observations that, if accepted, would
not necessitate the adoption of that view. Here,
we have no suggestions to offer that will modify
the thought of pre-existence, as we think, contained
in the words " for therefore came I forth." It is
certainly inconvenient to find such a developed
Christological conception here ; but there hardly
appears to be any other alternative. The course of
the narrative, as it has run so far, would not lead
us to anticipate such claims upon the part of Jesus ;
and, certainly, we think Swete is right in hinting
that the disciples did not fully understand all this
from His words. It would appear, then, that we

122

PARABLES AND PREACHING

may think out the subject of the life of Jesus as
best we can, strive by imagination to understand the
situation as it is brought before us, endeavour to
solve the problem of the working of His mind, but
when we have done our best there is still much to
explain, to investigate, and to baffle. We strive to
discover, e.g. when the consciousness of Divine
Sonship awakened in Him, and sometimes we fancy
it was gradual in its coming, then we recall the
baptism scene, and our conclusion must be modified.
We are, perhaps, even more assured that the
Messianic consciousness was probably a still later
development, and we encounter these few words
" therefore came I forth," and we are rather per-
plexed in justifying our theories. Isaiah 61 shows
us that Messiah was to be a preacher above every-
thing else, and Jesus claims to be that, and to set
it before Him as His chief work. May it not be
that the real explanation can be found in suggesting
that there were times when even the mind of Jesus
had clearer and more distinct flashes concerning
Himself, His origin, His work, than at other times ?
There may have been days when His own life, His
powers, His mission were not distinctly apprehended
in all their rich and wonderful significance, and
when everything was somewhat obscure, and He
could only in faith follow the will of the Father.
There were other occasions when these mists were
uplifted, and His understanding fully comprehended
the great purposes of God. Such a time was this,
when He realised most vividly that His work was
to do the will of God who had sent Him, and that
He had come forth as the messenger of the Father :
to reveal His love, His mercy, and His goodness in

123

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.
But Mark and John both touch the same point here.
Jesus we believe meant " for therefore came I forth "
(from God), and this implies a previous existence
with God. It also emphasises the high estimation
He had formed of this work of preaching. We are
deeply impressed with this revelation of Himself
given thus early in His relations with His disciples,
but certainly at the time they evidently did not
understand.

To sum up in general terms, we may discover
in these opening verses of St. Mark's Gospel two
striking pictures of Jesus drawn in outline certainly,
but still the lines are bold and distinct. After
being set apart for Divine Service in baptism, He
addressed Himself to the work for which He had been
sent, and found an enemy barring the way. The
first picture gives us only glimpses of the fierce
struggle that took place when Jesus went into the
wilderness to fight His battle alone. But He
emerged triumphant, through the power of the
Spirit that had come upon Him. Strong in the
strength received from this first victory, He now
applied Himself to the great missionary task which
He had set before Him. The temptation was
away from the sight of men ; this fresh under-
taking was in the full blaze of the public eye ; and
was in one aspect but a different sort of testing,
requiring powers and resources other than those
exercised in the former trial. For the young man
Jesus thus to enter upon this public work of preaching
and teaching must have, as already hinted, involved
much self-examination and searching of heart. . He
would put to Himself many questions such as

124

PARABLES AND PREACHING

every sensitive spiritually-minded young preacher
would put. There would, however, be this marked
difference, that while an ordinary preacher engaged
in a period of introspection might be overpowered
by a sense of his own unworthiness, this feeling had
no parallel in the consciousness of Jesus. It may
help us to interpret Him aright at this time to
remember that many of His trials, difficulties, and
experiences were just such as other men who are
alive to the importance of the situation are likely
to encounter. Our second picture is found in a
congregation dispersing after worship in the syna-
gogue at Capernaum. Unexpectedly they have
heard a wonderful preacher who has delivered an
amazing sermon quite different from anything
they have heard before. Moreover, they have seen
a very unusual deed performed. So, as they pass
on their way home, they are filled with astonishment
on account of the words and acts of this young
preacher. His choice of the preaching office has
been abundantly vindicated : " And they were
astonished at his doctrine : for he taught them
as one that had authority, and not as the scribes "
(Mark I 22 ). His word was with power : the power
of the fulness of the Spirit.

125

CHAPTER VI

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

THE Rev. T. H. Wright in an article, " Miracles,"
in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,
writes : " The process of thought and research,
both theological and scientific, has led to a position
where belief in the actuality, in the career of Jesus,
of those remarkable activities and manifestations
summed up under the comprehensive and popular
term ' miracle,' is made possible, if not inevitable.
... It is scarcely too much to affirm that belief
in these occurrences as vital parts of the Christian
revelation is rising, compared with which all previous
belief is feeble and superficial." We sincerely hope
this is an accurate statement of the present-day
attitude, but one wonders what the writer of this
article would think of another entitled " Thauma-
turgy in the Bible " which appeared in the Hibbert
Journal (Jan. 1920) under the signature of the
Rev. T. R. R. Stebbing, F.R.S. The latter begins
with the significant words, " Among so-called
miracles none are more impressive than those of
recalling the dead to life." The writer proceeds
to show that there are nine such cases recorded in
Scripture as having been done by five different
people. He then affirms : "In five of the cases

126

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

it is quite reasonable to suppose that instead of a
miracle there was only a misunderstanding." This
sentence practically gives us the keynote of what
is to follow. The document is written with the
undisguised intention of throwing discredit, not to
say ridicule, upon all the miracles recorded in the
Bible. It is certainly intended to be an appeal to
reason, but the frequent employment of the
argumentum ad hominem considerably diminishes its
effectiveness in the furtherance of that intention.
One or two sentences by way of example will
illustrate the tone of the article throughout :
" Elijah uses this unique power (that of calling the
dead to life again) to repay the personal kindness of
the widow at Zarephath. The same Elijah slays
four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal, consumes
an hundred and two soldiers by fire from heaven,
and by prayer prevailed with the same heaven
against his own country, so that * it rained not on
the earth by the space of three years and six months.'
The inhuman outrage is in fact cited by St. James
to prove that the effectual fervent prayer of a
righteous man availeth much." But he is even
more eloquent in his reference to Elisha. " This
man," he says, " was not only capable of instigating
political treason, but out of personal vindictiveness is
said to have cursed a flock of ' little children ' so
that 'there came forth two she-bears out of the
wood, and tore forty-and-two children of them.' "
Now it must be admitted, the outlines of these
references are true, but the subjects are dealt with
in such a manner as to leave an entirely wrong
impression upon the readers of the article. There
is a mistake which critics often make when occupied

127

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

particularly with Biblical subjects. This is the
rather common error of interpreting incidents that
happened two and a half millenniums ago in terms
of the thoughts, sentiments, and ideas of this present
century. Moreover, it should not be forgotten
when dealing with Old Testament miracles especially,
that the records of these come to us from remote
times, and are generally very meagre and lacking in
details, so that frequently there is not sufficient
information to enable us to form a fair and just
opinion on the ethics of the various subjects referred
to. Mr. St ebbing does not seem to have kept
these points sufficiently in mind when writing his
article. Prof. Flint in his Lectures on Divinity gave
utterance to the following striking and important
sentences concerning the Bible and its interpretation,
which are worthy to be pondered over by all those
engaged in Biblical studies and investigations :
" Much mischief has resulted from treating the Bible
as a text-book of physical science." Mr. Stebbing,
of course, does not do so, but he seems to think
everybody else does. " Scripture has its own object
before it, which is not the manifestation of science,
but the declaration of the Kingdom of God.
Scripture never makes scientific statements at all."
" The Bible is a religious text-book, therefore it is
not a text-book on astronomy or geology." " As A
RELIGIOUS TEXT-BOOK the Bible is infallible" We
are doubtful if articles such as that referred to, and
written in the spirit it reveals, help forward any
cause. Truth certainly has many sides, but it will
be found strongest, most irresistible, when shorn of
all bias, prepossession, and sophistry. Mr. Stebbing's
contribution, however, reveals that the rationalistic

128

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

school is not so ready, as Mr. Wright in his article
seems to imagine, to meet the theologian half-way.
The article following that of Mr. Stebbing in the
same copy of the Hibberi Journal, by Miss Constance
Maynard, may be regarded as the antidote to his.
It is entitled, "Is Christ Alive To-day?" The
answer is in the affirmative ; and the conclusion is
that all things are possible. The following is so
appropriate that we may be pardoned for quoting
it : " But though the miracles are worked on mind
now, there they still are; the ignorant are
enlightened, the weak of will are strengthened
to act, the morally infectious are cleansed, the
materialistic hear the claims of the world invisible,
and the totally indifferent begin to stir with a new
life. If we look in the right places we may see these
things still going on " (Hibbert Journal, Jan. 1920,
p. 372).

Only one or two quotations that appear of im-
portance as introductory to the study of this section
of our subject need be given. In a book published
by Macless, London, in 1906, several subjects upon
which diversity of opinion is held are treated in
a series of lectures by distinguished scholars. The
title of the book is Critical Questions, and it exactly
describes the contents. The. Bishop of Exeter deals
with " The Resurrection : the trustworthiness of
the Gospel narrative." The late Dr. Sanday of
Oxford gives a contribution on the "Virgin Birth
of our Lord." Our extracts are only of a general
character : " Nor is there the slightest reason for
supposing that the story was ever non-miraculous.
The earliest of our Gospels, Sfc Mark, is not less
deeply impregnated with the supernatural than

129 9

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the other two, and no ingenuity can purge it of
miracles."

" Does it help the situation to make a distinction
in the kind of miracle ? Harnack in What is
Christianity ? says : ' In our present state of know-
ledge we have become more careful, more hesitating
in our judgment. . . . That the lame walked, the
blind saw, and the deaf heard, will not be so sum-
marily dismissed as an illusion.' But some of the
miracles were wrought upon inanimate matter and
are a corporate part of the Gospel story." Again,
" But are miracles incredible under the circum-
stances which the Gospels presuppose ? Think of
the character of the Christ they picture Man, yet
superman." Again Harnack is referred to, address-
ing six hundred students, in What is Christianity?
He says : " We must not try to evade the Gospel by
entrenching ourselves behind the miraculous stories
related by the Evangelists. If there is anything
here which you find unintelligible, put it quietly
aside. Perhaps you will have to leave it there for
ever ; perhaps the meaning will dawn upon you
later, and the story assume a significance of which
you never dreamt. Perhaps, I may add, the day
may come when you will find in the faith of the
Incarnation a complete answer to your doubt."

These words are weighty, and they may be of help
in the brief study of " Jesus and the Miracles,"
upon which we are now to be engaged. Fortunately,
we are not called upon to enter the lists in a general
defence of the credibility of miracles that, of
course, belongs more appropriately to the apologist.
Yet we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that
the struggle still goes on, and that there are many

130

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

people who are not able to see eye to eye with us
on this point, or to pronounce our shibboleth.
We cannot, therefore, entirely ignore this opposition
when considering the contribution that the miracles
yield to the Ghristology of the Earliest Gospel.
Because of the attitude of hostility taken up by
some scholars, it may be admitted that the evidence
on their behalf and the value of their testimony to
Jesus have possibly received more prominence than
the circumstances of the case deserved. The
incidents recorded in Mark i 35 ~ 45 make it sufficiently
clear that Jesus had no desire to be much occupied
with this kind of work, and certainly, at first,
sought to evade it. He did not wish to establish
the kingdom of righteousness through any miracu-
lous operation; His own intention was to do so by
preaching. Remembering, then, the prominent
place that miracles occupy in this Gospel, and
keeping in view the hesitation, at least, that our
Lord showed in regard to the performance of such
deeds, we might inquire, first of all, whether the
somewhat abundant testimony to His success as a
miracle worker evidences a change of mind on the
part of Jesus respecting the plan of His work ? In
other words, did outward circumstances so operate
in His case as to make it necessary for Him to
modify His scheme of life, and adopt a course that
His better judgment did not approve of, even as
we ourselves often require to do ? Well, there is
absolutely no reason why we should not answer
that question in the affirmative if the evidence
available is such as to lead us to that conclusion,
and that without affecting our Christological views
at all. If, as is quite possible, Jesus had adopted a

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

plan of operations, say, during the temptation, it
would have been no more inflexible, no more
absolutely nor irrevocably fixed, than our plans
would be under similar conditions. There is no
reason for supposing that His methods could not
have been modified to suit the changing conditions
of the work as these were encountered. We must
not, however, assume that it was any sign of weakness
or any indication of inadequate foresight, if such a
modification actually did take place. The reluctance
of Jesus to enter upon thaumaturgic performances
was no doubt due to the desire to appeal to the
hearts and consciences of men. After all, His
work was moral and spiritual, and to produce
extraordinary physical effects might not have sub-
stantially helped forward His mission. Miracles
must, in the mind of Jesus, take a secondary place ;
and they ought to have no higher place still. They
can be best regarded as only incidents in His great
work of preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom.
He may have changed His methods^to some extent
when He discovered how difficult it was to make
a deep and lasting impression upon the people by
the spoken word : even He could only work upon
the material that came to Him through those
means that the particular circumstances of the case
necessitated. One other consideration that may
have affected the attitude of Jesus in this respect
was the appeal that distress made to His compassion.
Possibly He knew little of the world outside His own
particular neighbourhood before He entered upon
His public ministry. The distress, suffering, and
sorrow that thrust themselves upon His attention
now, made an appeal that was irresistible. . He could

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

not turn a deaf ear even to the impudent leper
who thrust himself upon the company (Mark I 40ft ),
but sent him away healed. One is entitled to say
in regard to this point, that the warmth of His
love overcame the coolness of His judgment ; and
who will regret that it was so ? What other result
could be expected when we remember that love
was His inspiring motive all the time ? He realised
He had the power to help ; He saw the great need
for His assistance; possibly, too, He recognised it
was not the most desirable way of obtaining His
supreme object, nor likely to be productive of the
best kind of faith, but " he had compassion on the
multitude." Still, we must remember that most
certainly in the earlier stages of His ministry,
Jesus did not regard the performance of miracles
as of supreme importance.

Nevertheless, their evidential value is not to be
despised, and it was not neglected even by Jesus
Himself. This may be inferred from several passages
in the fourth Gospel. " Jesus answered them, Many
good works have I shewed you from my Father;
for which of those works do ye stone me ? " (io 32 ).
" If I had not done among them the works which
none other man did, they had not had sin : but now
have they both seen and hated both me and my
Father " (i5 24 ). This view also receives support
from the Synoptists, Matthew and Luke. " Woe
unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida !
for if the mighty works which were done in you,
had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would
have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes "
(Matt, i I 21ff - ; parallel Luke io 13 ). Commenting on
John 5 3 e-37 j p ro H. A. A. Kennedy pointed out

133

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

that " this testimony of His works was an unusual
New Testament standpoint a deliberate appeal
to the works which He did. The passage gives a
glimpse of what happened in the Early Church.
We see how epya were exalted above the person
and character of Jesus Christ. They would be
raised up to a unique place on their own account,
and evidently the whole claim of Jesus would
depend upon what He had done." Now, it could
not be accurately said that St. Mark exalts the
Works above the person and character of Jesus,
yet it is very instructive to notice the number of
miracles he records and the interest he evidently
manifests in them. His Gospel, as we know, is the
briefest, yet he relates the performance of some
twenty of these " works," besides quite a number of
general references implying that similar deeds had
been done at various places. The prominence
given to these epya by Mark may be the incipient
stage of that process referred to by Prof. Kennedy,
and it would indicate that it came into the Church
at a very early period ; or it may rather be, so far as
Mark is concerned, and we think it is, his method
of endeavouring to interpret the person and
character of Jesus Christ. St. Peter is, of course,
our witness here, and he cannot banish from his
memory the effect that was produced upon him
and the other disciples by the works of our Lord.
We are not surprised at that, for certainly in the
same circumstances we would have been similarly
impressed. In this aspect of the ministry of Jesus
the disciples see a power behind such deeds that
they cannot account for by any ordinary human
standard, and so, for the moment, we may say they

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

interpret their Master as more than human. Or
we may put it thus : these works lead them to the
conclusion that Jesus possessed a power that they
could not explain from human experience.

Keeping these general observations in our mind,
we may now proceed to a more detailed consideration
of some of the miracles, so that we may discover the
influence they had in the development of the
Christology of the Earliest Gospel.

In the form for Solemnisation of Matrimony in
the Book of Common Prayer (p. 291), the following
sentence is found in reference to marriage : " which
holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with His
presence, and Jirst miracle that He wrought, in
Cana of Galilee." The Euchologion of the Scottish
Church Service Society has adopted practically
the same words " matrimony which is a holy
estate . . . which was beautified and adorned by
our Lord's gracious presence, and first miracle, at
the wedding in Cana of Galilee " (p. 328). These
statements are, no doubt, based upon John 2 11 :
" This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of
Galilee, and manifested fprth his glory ; and his
disciples believed on h&" Now it would be
interesting to know which was actually the first
miracle that Jesus performed. -St.- John here
specifically claims that it was the one which was
wrought at Cana, and which we regard as one of
the nature miracles. St. Mark clearly leaves the
impression that the first miracle was that of healing
the man with the unclean spirit in the synagogue
at Capernaum (i 23E -). The incidents recorded in
1 21-34 are evidently so closely connected as to
suggest that they all happened on one day the

135

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

first Sabbath that Jesus spent in Capernaum after

having entered upon His public ministry. Of

course, there is the possibility that John might not

have regarded this as a miracle ; but we do not need

to enter into that. His Gospel generally differs

so materially from the others as to incline us to

prefer the narrative recorded by St. Mark as more

likely to present the earliest view of Jesus at work.

We find, therefore, that He began at first to use

His extraordinary powers to heal the distressed and

diseased, and that right from the beginning of His

ministry. We know that neither His mother nor

His brethren in the earliest period believed on Him

(Mark 3 21 ). Yet the situation at Cana indicates

that Mary did expect something extraordinary to

happen. Moreover, it seems unlikely that Jesus

would have performed such a miracle at the very

commencement of His public work in view of what

we have seen already of the secondary place that

He designed miracles to occupy. For these reasons,

we must with all respect to the Prayer Book place

the miracle at Cana later in the ministry of Jesus.

Prof. H. A. A. Kennedy in his lectures on the

jfohannine Problems points out " the miracle

at Cana contradicts deliberately the story of the

temptation, which shows Jesus avoids any exhibition

that would advance His Messianic claims." He

further indicates that " many modern interpreters

regard this incident as chiefly symbolical. They

think of the marriage feast as a symbol of the new

religious joy that came into the world with Jesus

(Mark 2 18 - 22 ; Matt. 22 2 , 25 lff -)." Yet, Prof.

Kennedy warns against any exaggeration of such

a system of interpretation, carefully remarking that

136

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

" we are by no means convinced that all the material
is ideal history; there is a genuine historical nucleus."
Whatever that genuine nucleus may be, we are safe
in consigning it to a later period than those incidents
recorded by St. Mark as taking place on the first
Sabbath Jesus spent at Capernaum. Very probably
we are on sure enough ground in regarding the
cure of the man with an unclean spirit (Mark i 23fi -)
as truly the first miracle wrought by our Lord. We
need hardly dwell upon the great significance of
such an act being performed in such a place. It will,
however, be instructive to reflect that the primary
instance of the manifestation of this extraordinary
power took place in connection with Divine worship
in God's house, and may be understood, to some
extent, as the first outcome of the preaching of
Jesus. Nor do we think we are going too far in
affirming that there was here, in a certain aspect, a
solemn dedication, although not in any formal or
outward manner, of this power to the glory of God
and to the service of suffering humanity.

The subject of demonology as it is brought before
us so prominently and so early in this Gospel is
confessedly difficult. It has received a considerable
amount of attention at the hands of many in-
vestigators, and articles will be found in all the
principal dictionaries and encyclopaedias dealing with
it extensively. Those by Edersheim in chapters xiv.
and xxv., vol. i., of The Life and 'limes of Jesus the
Messiah, and the " Excursus on the Demons of the
Synoptic Gospels," by Menzies, in his Earliest
Gospel (p. 68), are particularly helpful and instructive.
We are not here called upon to enter into any
critical or historical investigation of the nature of

. 137

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the disease ; our object is to show how Jesus met and
conquered it. We may be permitted to say, how-
ever, that if the malady appears to us to be some-
what mysterious, it certainly seems to have been
very widespread in N.T. times. At Capernaum we
are informed (Mark I 34 ) that our Lord " cast out
many devils." This is also inferable from 3 11 , as
well as from the taunt of the scribes that He cast
out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of devils
(3 22 ). Jesus specially gave the Twelve power over
" unclean spirits." The disorder sometimes seemed
to be of the nature of a physical disability, as in
9 17 , where the possessed person is dumb. Edersheim
points out also that it was often of a temporary or
intermittent character ; and that was possibly the
case with the first instance in the synagogue
at Capernaum. Perhaps the cases where mental
derangement is suggested are the most numerous.

But whatever was the root cause of the disease,
or its character in any particular case, we find that
Jesus was in all instances able to relieve the distressed.
How He arrived at the knowledge of the possession
of this power is not explained ; it seems to have come
to Him just as the occasion arose. Exorcism was,
of course, comparatively common among the Jews
before the time of Jesus. Indeed some of them
believed that the greatest and most successful
exorcist the very Grand Master of the craft had
been Solomon, and his name was frequently used
in the incantations that were uttered by the Jews
when performing exorcisms. Acts ig 13 shows that
the name of Jesus was similarly employed by them at
a later period. That they actually did perform such
exorcisms is a perfectly fair inference from Luke 1 1 19 ,

138

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

which corresponds with Mark 3 22ff - : " And if I by
Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons
cast them out ? therefore shall they be your judges."
The power of exorcism was one of the gifts claimed
as permanent by the Early Church, and in the
third century the office of exorcist was specially
instituted. Perhaps in the Roman Catholic Church
this claim has never been relinquished, and the
writer is acquainted with one place in Ireland
where the more ignorant of the peasantry still
believed the priest possessed this power of exorcism.
It was rather significant, however, that there were
few, if any, admitted cases of demoniacal possession,
and nobody had ever actually seen his reverence
exercising the power.

The manner of exorcism practised among the
Jews must have been different from that which was
followed by Jesus. He always spoke directly to the
unclean spirit in such tones of authority that
invariably it must obey. He employed no in-
cantations, invoked no other name nor power.
He gave the command to the spirit by right of His
own authority. That clearly is the import of I 27 :
" What thing is this ? what new doctrine is this ?
for with authority commandeth he even the unclean
spirits, and they do obey him." Mark here, true
to the note he has already sounded, finds the power
of Jesus set forth in a conspicuous way by this
authority which He can exercise over unclean
spirits.

This view of the situation is strengthened when
we consider the particular case of healing recorded
in Mark 5 1 ~ 20 , the only instance in which the
Evangelist furnishes details. The healing of this

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

maniac at Gerasa or Gadara or Gergesa, for there
are differences of opinion as to the exact locality,
is told by our Evangelist in a manner that is ex-
ceedingly impressive and graphic. He seems to
have been a lonely, fierce, and untamable individual
possessed of great strength. This physical strength
is a very common feature even in modern cases
of mania. This man, who dwelt among the tombs
and in the mountains, was so powerful, that in the
words of Mark 5 3 "no man could bind him, no,
not with chains." Conceive of such a figure in all
the wildness and fierceness of his uncontrolled
nature, in possession of physical force much beyond
what was ordinary a terror to the whole district
on account of his ferocity, yet " when he saw Jesus
afar off he ran and worshipped him " (5 6 ). We are
justified in concluding that the power of Jesus is
even more pronounced than we had expected from
j23ff. ? f or j^^ S p ace seems to be annihilated: the

influence of the Spirit of Christ overleaps the
distance separating Him from this afflicted person
and at once subdues the demon within him. It is
true the unclean spirit sets up the same protest as
before against any interference with it on the part
of Jesus, and, what is confusing enough, even invokes
the name of God against any disturbance. Jesus is
represented as having some colloquy with the
spirit, and grants its request to enter into the swine :
all which raises points of peculiar difficulty. But
whether these difficulties can be solved or not, they
in no way affect the obvious purpose of the Evangelist,
which is not to propose enigmas for future scholars,
but to show that the calm word of authority spoken
by our Lord was able to tame even the wildest

140

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

spirit with which He came into contact. Assuming,
and the narrative leaves this impression, that the
man was a fierce and powerful maniac, evidently
with suicidal and homicidal tendencies, whose
malady was of long standing and whose ferocity was
well known, few men would care to-day to meet
such a one unarmed, and with practically no
physical powers of defence ; yet evidently Jesus did
so without the slightest trace of fear. And it is
strange that as soon as the man came within the
radius of the influence of our Lord, he quietly
prostrates himself (not, of course, with the ordinary
sense of worship) before Him. " Who can minister
to a mind diseased ? " Why, here is the answer.
Even our modern experience will corroborate that
there is nothing more hopeless, and if the tendency
be towards violence, nothing more dangerous,
because so powerful, than such a wild creature, and
yet at the word of Jesus the mania, or the devil, or
whatever it was that possessed the man, departs,
and he comes to his right mind. It hardly seems
possible to conceive of a more complete exercise of
power, over the mind and spirit than this case of
healing furnishes. We shall do well not only to
emphasise that, but to take care not to undervalue
it, for it appears to be the main point ; and was,
perhaps, the very object Peter and Mark had before
them in preserving the details of this story. The
other difficulties that arise, the ethics involved in
the wanton destruction of property, clearly did not
concern the Evangelist, and need not therefore
unduly worry us.

Nor is this impression lessened in the least by our
knowledge that others professed to have power to

141

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

exorcise evil spirits. What others could do presum-
ably without any claim to miraculous power, would
require certainly no miraculous power on the part
of Jesus for its performance. Of course, it is
obvious that everybody among the Jews did not
claim to have this gift, and it is still more likely that
those who did claim it, often did not prove their
possession of it by their 'ability to exorcise. Never-
theless, there is a difference, as we have seen, in His
methods as compared with theirs. The case we
have just been considering, it is to be observed,
possesses this peculiar feature, that others had tried
to tame the demoniac and had failed. St. Mark is
careful to say (5 4 ) "neither could any man tame
him." Jesus was not only unique in His methods of
working, but His power was greater than any other
man's : this is shown by His ability to heal in
instances in which they failed. This is also true
of the dumb spirit recorded in 9 17ff> , for although
their Master had given the disciples power over
unclean spirits (6 7 ), yet in this case they failed
utterly. Now, it is a matter of small importance
whether we say such works were miracles or not,
so far as Jesus was concerned. They certainly bear
testimony to the possession of power that was not
enjoyed by any other man of that time, so far as
is now known. That this power was personal to
Jesus is seen from the fact that He delegated it
to others, as has been just noticed, but also that
sometimes this delegated power failed. Again we
conclude, the effect of such works left upon the
minds of the disciples and those who were familiar
with the doings of Jesus, would be to lead them to
ascribe to Him powers which no other man possessed

142

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

in the same degree or extent; and that is only
stating the result in its lowest possible form.
Supposing we agree that in this work of exorcism
we are but on the borderland of the miraculous,
what ensues ? Only this, that it is difficult to
draw the line betweer what may be rightly regarded
as a miracle and what may not be so regarded in the
works of Jesus. This line can only be, like the
equator, an imaginary one. There can be no
doubt whatever that these extraordinary deeds
performed by Him were exercising a most powerful
impression upon the minds of the disciples and
preparing them for the reception of the fuller
revelation of His personality that was approaching.
The second instance of an extraordinary exhibition
of the power of Jesus recorded by St. Mark (i 30 -) is
of quite a different character, and is described only
in a couple of verses. It is the healing of Peter's
wife's mother. St. Luke in his parallel account in
4 38ff - differs in a few particulars from the other
Synoptists, and these differences are interesting to
study. Mark and Matthew tell us Jesus took hold
of the woman's hand as if to suggest that His cooling
touch, or at any rate the communication of some
subtle influence, had drawn the fever away. Luke
states that Jesus stood over her and rebuked the
fever, using the same word, eVer^o-ei/, as is found
in relation to cases of exorcism of evil spirits. It is
the use of this word that induces W. O. Oesterley,
in his article in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and
the Gospels, to state (p. 441) : " Fever would also
appear to have been regarded as a sign of possession,
for Christ is said to ' rebuke ' (eTre-nVw/o-ei/) the fever,
the identical word which is frequently used by Him

H3

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

when addressing demons, e.g. in next verse but one
in the passage in question (Luke 4 41 )." Salmon in
The Human Element in the Gospel appears to agree.
" St. Luke's phrase," he says, " however, e-Trer/yui/crei/
TO) Trvpera), would seem to indicate that he regarded
the disease as caused by the working of a malignant
spiritual being." Plummer, however, on Luke
(International Critical Commentary} 4 39 , main-
tains that " the errer/Aw/trey of verse 35 does not
show that the use of the same word here is
meant to imply that the fever is regarded as a
personal agent." Prof. Souter in his Lexicon to
the Greek New Testament gives the import of the
verb 7riTifjiOL(a as " I rebuke, chide, censure."
Possibly we are not called upon to force the mean-
ing of this word in Luke, but may assume that Jesus
said something in a chiding manner as if address-
ing the fever. We sometimes make such remarks
ourselves under similar conditions, without ever
implying that the object addressed understands us,
stiU less with the idea that there is a spirit behind it.
In any case, if Luke had really meant that Jesus
rebuked the demon which was the cause of the
fever, being a medical man we expect he would
have said so. We cannot, of course, be certain as
to how far medical science was developed at this
time in such subjects as fever, epilepsy, etc., but
it is hardly supposable that a trained physician
with Luke's intellectual capacity would, even in
those days, have believed that fever was caused by
an evil spirit. Taking everything into consideration,
we prefer the simple account as we find it in Mark's
Gospel, and except in regard to the point referred
to just now, there is no important discrepancy

144

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

between him and Luke. The tale as told in the
Earliest Gospel is most probable, and we may
be sure Peter would have remembered every
particular. After the synagogue service, Jesus and
the disciples who were with Him resorted to Simon's
house, no doubt to obtain hospitality. His wife's
mother had probably been taken suddenly ill with
a fever common to the district. We are inclined
to believe that even Peter did not know of this,
otherwise he would surely have told Jesus sooner,
so that other arrangements could have been made
for His entertainment. It is only when they get
to the. house that Jesus is informed of the woman's
illness, and He went in, and standing over her, as
He must have done seeing she was lying on her
mattress bed, He took hold of her hand and
lifted her up, and the fever left her. There is no
doubt at all about the cure, for she was able im-
mediately to set about her household duties and
to minister to their physical comfort. It is this
circumstance that seems to have made the greatest
impression upon those interested : it assured them
that the cure was immediate and perfectly effective.
It is very possible they would be familiar with the
kind of fever, and were evidently astonished at her
speedy recovery. In reviewing the whole situation,
we are satisfied this was a case of the healing of a
disease that was well known, and the cure was
performed in such a way as to arrest attention.
It did more than that, because as soon as the sun
was set, when the Sabbath was past, and the cool
of the evening had come, " they brought unto him
all that were diseased, and them that were possessed
with devils " (i 32 ). That was perhaps the best

145 10

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

testimony of their faith in the healing work that
Jesus had already done. It is noticeable that the
Evangelist in the verse just now quoted discriminates
between the casting out of devils and the curing
of those who were diseased. He does not appear
to have regarded the cure of Peter's wife's mother
as one of exorcism, even of a peculiar kind.

We do not feel it is necessary, indeed it is not
possible, to enter into a detailed criticism of the
various miracles recorded by St. Mark. There are
specimens of various diseases that might have been
regarded as practically incurable and which were
at once healed through the touch or word of Jesus :
a confirmed case of leprosy (i 403 -) ; an impotent-
palsied man (z m ) ; woman with an issue of blood
(5 252 -); blind man at Bethsaida (8 22fi -) ; blind
Bartimaeus (io 46ff -) these all show the power that
our Lord exercised over ailments of various kinds.
And while we cannot say these cases were all in
themselves incurable, yet by reason of their long
standing in some instances, it would appear that the
afflicted were hopeless of receiving any other relief
except what might be in the power of Jesus to give.
Indeed these may all be taken as specimens of His
work of mercy in respect of healing. We need not
suppose even that St. Mark with his long list of
miracles details fully all that Jesus performed, and
probably the list would not even be completed by
adding to it those which are mentioned in the other
Gospels. As we have not a full report of the
preaching of Jesus, no more have we a quite complete
account of His deeds. There were probably some
that were not recorded (John 21 25 ).

It is really hopeless to endeavour to erect a

146

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

standard by which we shall be able to judge the
relative difficulty of the particular kinds of miracles.
So far as our present-day knowledge and experience
go, it would seem to be as difficult to cure a raving
lunatic with a word, as it would be to heal a persistent
case of haemorrhage through the touch of one's
clothes, et vice versa ; and it would also be as
easy to cure a cancer with a touch, as to restore sight
to a blind man by using saliva as an ointment. The
fact is, all these, from the modern standpoint,
appear equally impossible of accomplishment. Yet
people have been occasionally in the habit of
estimating certain miracles as more difficult to
perform than others. There are some critics ready
to accept particular miracles because they appear
more susceptible of an explanation, and this commonly
means because they are more susceptible of being
explained away. That susceptibility, it is .just to
say, is imported into the situation by such critics
themselves. There is no suggestion of it found
in the New Testament narratives. The Gospels
are impregnated with the supernatural, and "no
ingenuity can purge them of miracles." There is
no hint of any difficulty in their performance in the
sacred narrative. There was one case certainly in '
which the disciples failed, but their failure appears
to have been due to something lacking in themselves.
So far as Jesus is concerned, there is no hint that
any one case of healing made greater demand upon
His power than another. He was equal to every
call that was made upon Him.

Still, it is probably true that while what has been
just now stated would not be denied, there are
reverent and devoted Christian people who actually

H7

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

regard raising the dead as the supreme miracle of all,
and as making the greatest possible demand upon
the powers of our Lord. We must here again refer
to Rev. T. R. R. Stebbing's article in the Hibbert
Journal (Jan. 1920). For convenience we give most
of the quotation again : " Among so-called miracles
none are more impressive than those of recalling
the dead to life." There are nine cases in the
Bible of such miracles. The writer goes on to say :
" In five of the cases it is quite reasonable to suppose
that instead of a miracle there was only a misunder-
standing. This would apply to the child of the
Zidonian woman restored by Elijah, to the Shuna-
mite's son revived by Elisha, to the daughter of
Jairus, of whom Jesus Himself said 'the maid is
not dead, but sleepeth' (Matt. 9 24 )." It is with
this instance we now propose to deal ; the words
quoted from St. Matthew are also found in St.
Mark 5 39 . The details of this miracle in the Gospel
we are studying are found in 5 22 - 24 > 35-43 M r .
Stebbing never takes up a consideration of the facts
further; the literal words of Jesus are evidently
enough for him " the damsel is not dead, but
sleepeth," and not another word is written regarding
the case. In John n 11 Jesus says: "Our friend
Lazarus sleepeth " and it is quite clear that He
means Lazarus is dead. One wonders why Mr.
Stebbing did not dispose of this latter miracle in the
same way as he does the raising of the daughter of
Jairus ! He certainly gives some consideration to
the raising of Lazarus, and submits it to some little
examination. But why so, since Jesus says of them
both they are sleeping ? Of course our Lord
eventually had to inform His disciples plainly that

148

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

Lazarus was dead ; while in the other case the
position is quite the reverse the people insist that
the damsel is dead, but Jesus affirms she is sleeping.
Was not this custom of speaking of a person who was
dead as being asleep a usus loquendi on the part of
Jesus, which became wedded to the speech of the
Christians of that generation (i Thess. 5 10 , 4 13f> ;
I Cor. I5 18 20 ; Acts I3 36 , y 60 ) ? It is quite true
that in Mark 5 39 the word is KaOevSei, and in John
n 11 it is /ce/eot/7Tat. In all the other references
given it is some form of the latter word that is used,
except in I Thess. 5 10 , where we find KaOeuSa). This
is rather interesting, because in the Epistle a few
verses earlier the author uses /coiyuaw, the inference
being that he regarded these words as synonyms.
Souter in his Lexicon assigns practically the same
meaning to both words : " /ca0e'y&a, I am sleeping
(asleep) ; I sleep, Koifiaofiai, I fall asleep, I am asleep,
sometimes of the ' sleep of death' (e.g. Matt. 27 52 )."
It is instructive to find this conception of death as
a sleep so frequent in Paul, and bearing in mind
Mark's intercourse with the Apostle, we expect some
similarities of phrase and expression we have
noticed some of these already. Liddell and Scott
agree with Souter, adding the note after KaOevSco,
" according to Schlewsner in New Testament of
sleep of death like Km/maa-Oat, but all the instances
prove the reverse, except I Thess. 5 10 ." The whole
question is of considerable importance, because, as this
is the only miracle of its kind in Mark, certain critics
appear to think it should be somehow interpreted as,
or reduced to, an ordinary case of healing. And so
we find the greatest possible emphasis laid upon the
ipsissima verba employed by Jesus on this occasion

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

*

" the maid is not dead, but sleepeth " and it is
insisted that He acted all through as if she was still
alive. This is the line of interpretation taken up
by Menzies on the passage, and his note is not so
helpful as we could desire. Yet it seems impossible
to eliminate the miraculous here. We are bound to
ask how Jesus knew that the maiden was not dead.
When He said so, it does not appear He had seen her
or examined her in any way. It is either an instance
of miraculous knowledge or one of miraculous power,
and the extreme radical critics place themselves, we
think, on the horns of this dilemma. We are not
at all anxious as to which point they select for their
impaling, for they are no more eager to ascribe
miraculous foreknowledge to Jesus than miraculous
power. If, however, they rejoin that His statement
was only a good guess, then we answer, He might
have guessed wrongly, and the people who saw the
child were likely to be right. Perhaps in connection
with this miracle, if it be so regarded, verse 43 has
not received the attention that it deserves, and it is
possible that if we could get a satisfactory explana-
tion of it we might have some light thrown upon the
work itself. " And he charged them strictly that
no man should know it : and he commanded that
something should be given her to eat." (i) Why
did Jesus give such strict injunctions that nothing
should be said about what had happened in the inner
room where this child was lying ? Menzies answers
that by saying : " He does not want to be spoken of
as one who is able to raise the dead." That may be
quite a good suggestion, but it hardly seems to be
supported by what follows. In the next paragraph
he says: "Here (St. Mark's account) the child is

150

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

not really dead, but only apparently dead." If this
latter be correct, what need was there for Jesus to
fear being spoken of as one who is able to raise the
dead ? If the girl was only -apparently dead, He
had but to say to the friends when she was restored,
"It was as I judged, she was not really dead, but only
in a temporary swoon, from which I have revived
her." That would surely have been much more
effective in counteracting any idea the people had
formed as to her being dead. Let us consider the
evidence we have in Mark only. A ruler of the
synagogue in which Jesus had more or less frequently
preached, and in which He had done His first
extraordinary work, has a daughter who is taken very
ill. He hears that Jesus has returned to Capernaum,
where the latter's power to cure divers diseases is
already well known. The ruler decides to appeal
to this Man who has so marvellously helped others
in similar straits. When he left home his daughter
was on the point of death. We do not think a
father would make any mistake about that. Because
of delays of one kind and another, mentioned in the
Gospel narrative, and possibly because Jesus does not
appear to be in any great hurry, herein reminding
us of the case of Lazarus, while the procession is on
the way to the ruler's house a message comes to say
that the child is dead. Presumably it would come
from some person in authority, who would know the
exact position of affairs. The father does not
seem at all surprised. But what does Jesus do or
say ? Overhearing the message that has just been
delivered, He addresses the stricken parent in these
words : " Be not afraid, only believe " (5 36 ). Luke
adds : " and she shall be saved." Matthew does

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

not report this part of the story. Are we riot
justified in inferring from Luke's additional remark
just quoted, that at the time of writing his Gospel
it was understood the child was dead ? However
that may be, we are safe in affirming that if the girl
was not really dead and Jesus knew it, now was the
time to state it very plainly, for He must have known
very well that the father believed his child was dead,
and He allowed him to continue in that belief.
Undoubtedly the natural thing, that which the
sympathy of Jesus would have dictated Him to say,
was, " she is not dead, she is only in a swoon, she is
really sleeping." This would have given the man's
faith some ground to work upon. As it was, the
appeal was made to him to believe and hope against
what seemed to him an absolute certainty. It
surely was gratuitous torture that we would not
expect Jesus to practise, to keep the father in suspense
even for a short period, when by a word He could
have eased the effect of the message which this man
had just received! And when they come to the
house, how does the situation develop ? We need
not be further occupied with the words Jesus spoke
to the multitude " the damsel is not dead, but
sleepeth " except to ask if it is meant that this was
only an ordinary sleep. And are we to assume all
the people gathered in the house could not recognise
it as such ? It must be borne in mind that sepulture
followed very closely upon death in the East, and the
bystanders would probably have their own methods
of recognising death. If it is, however, assumed
that Jesus meant by the words quoted that the girl
was in a swoon, or undergoing a period of suspended
animation, it is most pertinent to inquire if

152

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

is ever used in that sense ? Certainly not in the
New Testament. The word swoon only occurs in
Lam. 2 11 ' 12 , where the LXX uses in the eleventh
verse e/cXe/Trw, and in the following verse e/cAwo, to
translate the Hebrew *]&$. The more common
word in N.T. for a fainting-fit seems to be cXi/a>,
and our idea of swoon does not appear to be found
there. Moreover, if this was only an ordinary case
of healing, why were so great precautions for
secrecy taken ? Only the favourite disciples, Peter,
James, and John, with the parents of the child, were
permitted to enter the room where she was lying,
and they were enjoined strictly not to speak about
the matter. Jesus, let us remember, had just
recently restored in a somewhat extraordinary
manner the woman afflicted with an " issue of
blood " ; this was done in the most public manner
possible. We know also He had wrought other
notable deeds in and around Capernaum which had
created very great astonishment and popular excite-
ment. Wherein did this case of the daughter of
Jairus differ that so much secrecy was required ?
It is apparent that the difference could not be in
any of the outward circumstances, and that it must
have been in the nature of the work itself. There
seems only one reasonable and adequate explanation,
and it is that this " work " was differentiated from
all other cases of healing yet done in Capernaum,
by the fact that the child was really dead ; and
Jesus, foreseeing the very great excitement that
would follow upon the publicity of the performance
of such a wonderful work, urged all concerned to
keep the matter secret. And here comes in the
valuable hint of Prof. Menzies, for it is evident that

153

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

at this juncture " He does not want to be spoken of
as one who is able to raise the dead." He Himself
seems at once to have departed from the house
without observation. But in doing so, was He not
actually confirming the impression these people
had formed ? At first they would be sure to think
that He had departed from the house so quietly
because He had found out that they were right
regarding the child, and that she was really dead ;
afterwards, when they discovered she was alive and
well, it is difficult to imagine what they would think.
But is there any need to strain the point further ?
It appears, taking a careful and unbiassed view of the
situation, that this child was really dead, and Jesus
brought her to life again. Still, supposing she was
not, that she was, in the words of her father, " at
the point of death," and had fallen into a comatose
condition, does that remove the idea of the
miraculous ? We certainly do not think so. Im-
mediately to restore one who was so plainly near to
death is hardly less wonderful than to revive one
already dead. Really, when such works lie beyond
the region of our experience, we cannot very well
discriminate between relative difficulties in their
performance.

(2) The second point worthy of observation and
consideration in verse 43 is, that Jesus " commanded
that something should be given her to eat." Many
scholars believe that this was done by Him to prove
that the child was really restored. Morrison points
out the improbability of that, but does he catch the
point himself ? He says : " He (Jesus) would enter
at once into the circle of the little damsel's self-
consciousness and understand how sweet to her

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

young fresh appetite, after the long abstinence to
which she had been subjected in her illness, would be
' something to eat.' Even the child's mother was
not so motherly as Jesus." But we do not know
that the child had been subjected to a long period of
abstinence. Menzies explains this reference thus :
" Before leaving the house He (Jesus) says something
about her being fed, giving, perhaps, some directions
as to her diet, as a wise physician should." It is
questionable if we should try to make very much
out of this small incident. It is possible, as Menzies
suggests, that Jesus gave " some directions as to her
diet," but it may be doubted very much if that is
what we are to understand from the words, " and
he commanded that something should be given her
to eat." The situation was, we think, simply this.
The father and mother were so upset by the experi-
ence through which they had now passed, that they
forgot everything else, even the pressing needs of
their daughter, who had now been so wonderfully
restored to them. She was hungry, perhaps, much
exhausted by her sickness, no doubt, and her
immediate need was something to sustain and
nourish her. The only one to think of these things
was JesuSj because He is the only person in the house
who is now cool and collected. He alone has
Himself absolutely under control. All the others
were incapacitated for the time by the unique
experience which had befallen them. His words
were intended to call them back to the realities of
the situation, so that the physical needs of the child
should be attended to immediately.

On a review of the evidence in this case, and
taking the whole circumstances into account, we

155

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

feel this was a most wonderful intervention of the
power of Jesus. The impression made upon Peter,
James, and John must have been exceedingly great,
and the problem which, no doubt, had already-
started in their minds concerning their Master
would become more insistent, yet even more
inexplicable " Who is this ? "

There are three miracles recorded by St. Mark
that present peculiar difficulties. They are : " The
stilling of the tempest " (4 37ft ), " Christ walking
on the water" (6* 9ff> ), and " the cursing of the
fig-tree" (n 12ff -). It is not only the rationalistic
critics who take exception to these, but other
Christian people experience a good deal of trouble
in deciding what attitude to adopt regarding them.
The casting out of devils and the healing of the sick
they can accept, because in a measure such miracles
do not run so directly in the teeth of the laws of
nature as we understand them. But those men-
tioned above seem to be a direct contradiction of
such laws, quite against all human experience of
nature's working, and one of them especially appears
to be unworthy of the mission of Jesus Christ.
There is no doubt these objections are very for-
midable, and cannot be easily set aside. It may be
observed, however, that so far as the argument as
to the contradiction of natural laws is concerned, it
is directed equally against anything that we would
regard as miraculous. It seems just as violent a
breach of the uniformity of nature to soothe a
raving maniac with a word, as to calm the raging of a
storm by the same agency. If the power to perform
miracles is allowed at all in the case of Jesus, it
certainly is a very difficult thing to limit it in any

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

given direction. But are we certain we have
sufficient knowledge and understanding of the
resources of our Lord to enable us to do so ? It
may also be questioned whether we have even an
adequate knowledge of nature, and of the relation
of Jesus to it. The writer has been through the
experience of a storm at sea during the night not
so very dissimilar from the account given in this
Gospel (4 37 ), with the very decided difference that
he was in a larger and much more comfortable
vessel, and there was therefore comparatively little
danger. But the experience makes it exceedingly
difficult to imagine how the wind could have been
arrested in its onward rush by a word ; or the sea
made quiet by a command as recorded in 4 37fi -
And this difficulty is increased when, as in these
days, we know what is the cause of the wind
varying gradients of atmospheric pressure and that
it is itself the most common cause of a tempestuous
sea. Nature, science, and experience are against
two of these three " nature miracles " recorded in this
Gospel, and the testimony of these three witnesses
is very powerful.

Menzies writing on 4 37ff - says : " Comment can
add nothing to these verses ; they tell their own
story in the shortest and most graphic way." We
think he is scarcely quite fair to the disciples in his
comments. Is it just to say they are represented as
being poor sailors and frightened by a squall ? The
fair interpretation surely is, that they were good
sailors, but this was such an unparalleled tempest
that they had given up hope. His note on the
passage is helpful, but, we believe, is marred to some
extent by the concluding sentence : " Mark no

157

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

doubt means to represent Jesus as having had power
over the wind and waves, but that power is not
claimed by Jesus Himself ; it belongs to the inter-
pretation afterwards put on His words and de-
meanour." If that is so, then we wish to know
what Jesus meant when " he arose, and rebuked the
wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still." This
was more than a little byplay on the part of our
Lord ; it really involved a claim to this very power.
We are entitled to believe He meant what He said
when He spoke to the wind and the waves on this
occasion : and if He did, implicitly although not
explicitly, He asserted His right to require obedience
from these elements. The following extracts from
Salmon (The Human Element, etc.) and Swete
{Commentary on St. Mark) are so appropriate for the
development of our main subject, that we crave
indulgence for quoting them. "This miracle,"
says the former, "has an important place in the
history of the progressive steps by which Jesus
revealed His power to His disciples. Their attention
was first caught by His power over demoniacs ; then
St. Luke 4 39 tells how He rebuked a fever and it
departed; here we read that inanimate objects
were obedient to His command, and that when He
rebuked the winds and the waves they submitted "
(pp. 266-267). " This miracle," says Swete,
" comes home to the Apostles above any that they
had witnessed. It touched them personally; they
had been delivered by it from imminent peril. It
appealed to them as men used to the navigation of
the Lake. Thus it throws a new and awful light
on the Person with whom they daily associated "
(pp. 90-99).

158

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

One is much inclined to think these two paragraphs
strike the right note, and indeed reveal the purpose,
if we might say so, of the miracles recorded in
Mark 4 37fi - and 6 49ff -, for they are somewhat similar
in their character. Such miracles were, without
doubt, necessary experiences and influences in the
educational development of the disciples. They had
already watched several performances of a strange
character that had caused them to marvel ; but
others had been chiefly the interested parties. Now,
they had had an example of the power of Jesus
that would appeal to themselves particularly.
Nearly all the company of disciples were fishermen,
and, therefore, familiar with boating on trie Sea of
Galilee. Could, then, a better means have been
conceived of bringing home a personal lesson to
them ? They were being approached in a way
that they knew, and could, consequently, under-
stand. No others knew better than they the
fierceness and force of such a gale upon the Sea of
Galilee, so that none was likely to be better able
to appreciate the power that would be necessary to
subdue the storm and to cause the waves to sink to
sleep. Small wonder, indeed, that these men were
filled with amazement.

We have coupled these two miracles together
because they are not only of the same character,
but also because it is indisputable that the Person
who could thus calm the winds, and bring the waves
into subjection, could just as .easily walk upon the
water. But the latter miracle has been particularly
attacked by Paulus and Strauss. Salmon deals with
their positions in his criticism of the miracle of
Christ walking on the sea, and Edersheim has a page

'59

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

or two in answer to them when occupied with both
miracles. Any further criticism of the attitude of
Paulus is here unnecessary, for, as Prof. Marcus
Dods has remarked, his method " did not get any
general credence." " It would make the writers of
the Gospels," he says further, " as silly, uncritical,
gullible persons not to be depended upon." Strauss
was a more formidable opponent to the generally
accepted position, and possibly has still some faithful
followers. His theory was that a great deal, if not
all, the miraculous material in the Gospels was
mythical. " But by this he does not mean merely
the accretion of the marvellous, but rather the
conscious representation in symbol or in supposed
fact " (Dods' Lectures) . The Gospel narrative repre-
sents as facts what is true of ideas. But what is
untrue of fact is true of idea, and the fact is given
for sake of the idea. The mythological and sym-
bolical interpretation seem with Strauss to join
hands. He says : "The entrance to the Gospel
history was through the ornamented door of myth,
and the exit was the same." The most of the
Gospel narrative, he alleges, is unhistorical. The
question is, Can his main position be established ?
If so, then all miracles may be rejected, (i) Was
the age of the Gospels such an uncritical and
mythological one as Strauss affirms and able scholars,
such as Prof. Marcus Dods, deny ? There is very
little about the Gospels to suggest that the writers
were easily imposed upon or readily deceived. If
Acts i 15 ' 26 may be regarded as reliable, it shows
that, on the contrary, the Apostles were extremely
careful in selecting a successor to Judas and only
a person who had been an eyewitness of the facts in

1 60

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

the public ministry of Jesus was considered eligible.
There is a ring of honesty and carefulness in the
whole proceedings which draws out our faith.
Similarly, the atmosphere of the Synoptics does not
suggest an uncritical mind on the part of the
disciples, or that they were men easily to be imposed
upon. We need only recall how frequently their
want of faith and their persistent unbelief are
rebuked by Jesus. Perhaps Strauss would have said
this was but the varnish, put on to make the narrative
appear more attractive and artistic. Even in that
suggestion, is there not the hint of a higher literary
art, and a deeper moral duplicity than the disciples
evidently possessed ? {2) Time is required for a
myth to grow and flourish. But is there sufficient
time in this case ? It hardly seems so in view of the
position now taken up by Harnack. (3) It would
have required a very powerful myth to have created
a man like the Apostle Paul. In a sense was he not
a miracle ? A moral and spiritual wonder, at any
rate ? Could he have been the product of such a
system of Christianity as Strauss proposes ? When
we consider his whole history we are bound to answer
in the negative. (4) It must not be forgotten that
Jesus Christ Himself was not a myth. There are
some historical references concerning Him preserved
in other writings, apart from the New Testament,
and there is no inconsistency between anything
that is there recorded and the portrait which is
presented of Him in the Gospels. (5) If the narra-
tive of the miracles was of mythical origin and growth,
incongruities and objectionable features common to
most allegorical and mythological tales, and which
are even found in some of the apocryphal books of

161 ii

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the New Testament, would have presented them-
selves. But these are wanting in the story of Jesus,
and the stamp of honesty and sincerity is impressed
upon every page, of the New Testament. (6) One
thing more requires to be added: the Gospels do
not really present Jesus as a great thaumaturgist.
They distinctly show, as we have already discovered,
that He did not desire to engage in this work to
any considerable extent. The performance of such
deeds was but accidental in His earthly ministry.
They were valuable manifestations of His power
certainly, but never did He regard them as the
supreme purpose of His earthly life and mission.

We have left one miracle yet to be' considered :
properly it belongs to the next section of our
subject, as it occurred very late in the public ministry
of our Lord, but it will be convenient to take it up
at this point, and with it complete what we have
to say under this head. " The cursing of the
fig-tree" (n 12ff -) presents difficulties that are
peculiar to itself, and we are not at all certain that
it ought to be classed as a miracle. One of the
headings given to St. Mark, chapter n, in certain
editions of the New Testament, is " Christ curseth
a fruitless fig-tree." Now, on reading over the
narrative, we find that Jesus said to the fig-tree,
" No man eat fruit of thee hereafter " ; and it was
the next day when passing it, and seeing it " dried
up from the roots," that St. Peter said, " Master,
behold, the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered
away." The question is, Did the words of Jesus
involve such a curse that the tree immediately
began to wither up ? That is to say, could these
words of our Lord be strictly interpreted as a curse,

162

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

or was this idea not attributable rather to Peter's
recollection of what had happened the day before ?
Swete says : " Neither form (Matthew's nor Mark's)
can properly be called a curse or imprecation.
Contrast Gen. 3 17 ; Heb. 6 71 " It is generally
admitted that there was something abnormal about
this tree ; it is believed, for example, that it should
not have had leaves at this time. So far as the words
of Jesus are concerned, it might have gone on bearing
leaves ; it never could bear fruit. Bengel's remark
is perhaps apposite, " Quod Jesu Christo non servit,
indignum est quod ulli mortalium serviat."

The main difficulty, however, is that it really
shows our Lord in a rather unfavourable light,
because it represents Him as doing an act that was
quite contrary to His usual custom, and indeed
unworthy of Him. The tree was an inanimate
object, acted upon by forces and conditions outside
itself, and it was actually dependent upon these for
fruitfulness. Yet it is condemned here as if it were
the most guilty and worthless transgressor. Then,
is. not our Lord shown somewhat in an unreasonable
attitude on this occasion ? He goes forward to this
fig-tree, " if haply he might find any thing thereon,"
though " the time of figs was not yet." Well, it is
asked, was He not expecting too much ; and ought
the tree to be blamed for not bearing fruit out of
the proper season ? Or is it that the knowledge
and understanding of Jesus were now at fault ?
These are some of the difficult questions that are,
as we have said, peculiar to this miracle. How shall
we answer them ? Various suggestions are offered
by way of explanation, and Morrison in his
Commentary enters very elaborately into a detailed

163

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

exposition of the passage, and criticism of those
commentators who impugn its reasonableness and
integrity. Most modern scholars regard the incident
as a parable in action. The fig-tree, with its
abundant leaves but no fruit (and it was not un-
reasonable to expect fruit), is the people of Israel.
The sentence of perpetual fruitlessness uttered by-
Jesus was a sign to the disciples of the rejection of
the Jews. Certainly this is attractive, and fits into
the religious situation ; it also relieves us of most
of the difficulties hinted at already. But does it
not create some of its own ? If it be accepted,
we are bound to ask why the Evangelist so alters
his style in relating this particular story. Further-
more, we feel some explanation is necessary for
supposing that Jesus thus combined a parable with
a miracle and so produced confusion in the mind
of the disciples, and we might even add of the
Church, ever since. His parables were commonly
so striking and illuminative, that they were ex-
ceedingly apt illustrations of some point which He
wished to emphasise. But in this case, the parabolic
interpretation sought to be put upon the passage is
arbitrary, and bears no relation at all to the im-
mediate context. One hazards the opinion that it
never would have been offered if the difficulties of
a more literal interpretation had been less formid-
able. Moreover, the reference next day to the
withered fig-tree contains no hint of such an
interpretation, but takes up a different idea entirely,
viz. the power of faith in God.

If we are not to accept this explanation, how then
shall we interpret this somewhat extraordinary
incident ? Well, may we not plead that it is

164

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

unreasonable to expect that every incident, oc-
currence, or statement in the Bible, or even in the
New Testament alone, should be fully unfolded
and explained in terms acceptable to the modern
mind ? Many of the details have been greatly
compressed, or have been even omitted altogether.
It is well known that the writers only allowed
themselves a certain space for their composition,
with the consequence that many particulars which
might have helped to a reliable exegesis are not
forthcoming. Then, sometimes, Christian scholars
have felt themselves hampered by the feeling that
they must always defend the Lord from any even
apparent inharmonious word or action. That is a
most laudable ambition ; but is it necessary ? Is
His moral worth not sufficiently evident to enable
us confidently to affirm that if He allowed the
swine, e.g., to be hurled to destruction by the
dispossessed devils, He had good reason for doing so ;
or that if He condemned a fig-tree to fruitlessness,
there was some justification for this act, although
we may not be able to discover what that was ?

Is it necessary to search into every minute detail
of such an episode as that now before us ? Is it of
supreme importance to ascertain whether Jesus did,
or did not, know if there was fruit on the tree ?
As the Evangelist tells the story, the impression is
left that Jesus went to it because He was hungry,
and He resolved to try if haply He might find
something on it. He did not go forward with the
certainty of finding fruit ; quite evidently He knew
it would be unusual for the tree to bear at that
season ; still, there was at least the chance. This
is the force we take of a/oa. Swete says : " The apa

165

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

reviews the circumstances already recited and infers
from them the chance of success." But obviously
there is also present the apprehension of failure.
Regarding it in this way, there is little question of
disappointment or chagrin at not finding fruit, and
there is no consequent cursing because it had not
been discovered. We suggest that Jesus not having
succeeded in finding fruit, determined to turn this
incident to advantage in imparting a very important
lesson to the disciples. He says to the tree, "No
man eat fruit of thee hereafter," undoubtedly
suggesting to the minds of His followers condemna-
tion of hypocrisy (for when there were leaves, we
understand, there also should have been fruit). We
might paraphrase His utterance in a sentence. " Do
not deceive any other man hereafter, by a pretence
and empty show which have no reality." Still, that
is not the real lesson He intends the disciples to
learn. It is only on the morrow that the incident
itself bears fruit. Let us remember that the days
are but few now in the earthly life of our Lord:
yet still the faith of His followers has not attained
to that fulness and fervency which He desired.
Presently the greatest trial of that faith would
take place, through His death and resurrection.
He had given them already, in the two miracles
associated with the Sea of Galilee,, instructions well
suited to their particular case, and which must
have made a tremendous impression upon them.
And now He wished, at last, in some manner to
assure them of His absolute power over nature in
another form, so that their faith might survive the
shock of His death and prepare them in a measure
for the still more wonderful, extraordinary, and

166

JESUS AND THE MIRACLES

supernatural experience of His resurrection. Here
was ample material ready to His hand for an illustra-
tion. The lesson was one of the last He was to
teach to them the power of faith even to work
things that appeared impossible. It was such
instruction as their peculiar circumstances required
at this time. This explanation has the merit of
keeping before us the purpose Jesus had in view,
which was the increasing of the faith of the disciples.
But if it is not acceptable, then we fear we are
forced to admit the problem is insoluble so far as
we are concerned, for it seems indisputable that
the parabolic interpretation usually given is rather
imported into the passage than deduced from it.
The lesson of the incident, which harmonises with
the context, unquestionably is the power of faith,
and this is illustrated by the fig-tree losing its
bloom so quickly, and fading away so soon, follow-
ing upon the word of Jesus. Again He spoke with
power.

We have only been able to make a rather limited
survey of the miracles as they are recorded in
St. Mark's Gospel, and to consider in greater detail
a few that seemed more difficult to understand.
Every one of these instances of the practice of
miraculous power must have exercised a great
influence upon the views entertained respecting
their Master by the disciples and others who were
brought into contact with Him in these acts : they
would be a surprising, and at first very mysterious,
revelation of His personality. There can be little
doubt that as these works increased, the followers
of Jesus must have found it difficult to settle in
their minds whether He was the Christ or not.

167

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

It is instructive to observe that after the confession

at Caesarea Philippi, St. Mark records only three

more miracles. These are : " The healing of the

dumb spirit " (9 im ) when the disciples are helpless,

" healing of blind Bartimaeus " (io 46ff -), and " the

barren fig- tree " (n 12ff -). When we remember the

long list of miracles in this Gospel, we may well

inquire if the Evangelist has not betrayed a purpose

in recording practically the whole of them before

Simon's confession. The inference is, that these

extraordinary deeds had a particular object to

accomplish, at least in the mind of the Evangelist,

and when that was secured, further reference to them

was no longer necessary ; for we cannot suppose

Jesus practically ceased to perform them after the

incident at Caesarea Philippi. The object seems

to have been secured in the confession. All these

works were part of the education and training of

the disciples and others respecting the Man- Jesus

of Nazareth. The seeds of future faith were being

sown now through these events and experiences :

sometimes it seemed a rather hopeless task ; but

the impression was being made the atmosphere

was being created. These wonderful acts must have

gradually, and perhaps even somewhat slowly, lifted

their thoughts from Jesus as an extraordinary man

as a superman to something even still higher.

So far as St. Mark's Gospel is concerned, it is

describing the situation correctly enough to state

that the distinctively miraculous work of Jesus

effectively came to an end when Peter with the

other disciples could say, " Thou art the Christ,

the Son of the Living God."

1 68

CHAPTER VII

CHRISTOLOGICAL INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

IN tracing the Christological development of
St. Mark's Gospel, the very greatest weight must
assuredly be given to the influence the miracles
exercised in moulding the opinions that people
were now forming concerning Jesus, and which
prepared them, in some measure, for the very
highest thoughts in relation to His person and
power. There were, however, other forces and
agents operating, which although less prominent,
still produced a very considerable effect in creating
and perfecting the Christological ideas entertained
by His followers regarding Him, from the beginning
of His ministry and for some time thereafter
indeed, until, these conceptions had reached their
full maturity. These are all brought out in the
Gospel in a very simple and natural way as the
Evangelist tells his story, and we must now consider
some of them briefly.

It is, of course, very questionable if the disciples
who were first called had any clear ideas concerning
the Master whom they were requested to follow.
Still, if we are correct in supposing that some of
these disciples had been followers of John the
Baptist, and that Jesus Himself may have for a time

169

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

attended upon John's ministry, then these, at least,
would really enter upon their discipleship with what
we may consider a different view of Jesus from that
entertained by others. It is to be presumed that
they would have heard the Baptist's testimony
concerning Jesus (John I 29a ). The strange state-
ment, " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world " (John I 29 ), would not be
easily forgotten. It is extremely probable that it
was when John had been removed from the active
work of bearing testimony to Jesus, that these
disciples of his accepted the invitation of the new
Rabbi, and began to follow Jesus. Certainly, they
had not, at this time, a clear apprehension of all that
was involved in John's statement ; but we are safe
in believing that they, at any rate, began with the
idea that their Master was more than an ordinary
rabbi. That remark, however, will not apply to
those other disciples who had not come under
the Baptist's influence, nor heard his statements
respecting Jesus ; they would probably be attracted
to the latter just because He claimed to be a rabbi ;
or perhaps they may have had personal relationship
with the earlier disciples just now referred to. Yet
this claim itself was surely unique at the time, and
in the conditions in which it was made. He had
not been trained as others who were designed for
this office. He was not a man of letters ; He had
not the superior education which the times provided.
Instead of that, He had spent His youth and early
manhood at the carpenter's bench in the obscure
town of Nazareth. This was, as we know, one of
the reasons why the Jews could not satisfactorily
account for Jesus. " How knoweth this man letters,

170

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

having never learned ? " (John y 15 ). Now, all the
disciples must soon have come to know that He had
not been educated in any rabbinical school, and they
must therefore have recognised some other authority
and claim upon their service. No doubt, too, the
first group of disciples would soon inform the later
members of what had been said by John, and thus
have early awakened their interest and curiosity.
We are not satisfied that the relationship which
existed between Jesus and His disciples was that of
an ordinary rabbi and his pupils. In the case of
some of them Peter, Andrew, and the sons of
Zebedee there was more in it from the very first ;
and the others soon came, we think, to view Jesus
in the same way, to entertain the same thoughts
concerning Him as those just named. There was,
as we are often told in St. Mark's Gospel, the
authoritative note in the teaching and preaching of
Jesus which differentiated Him from the ordinary
rabbi, and which must have affected greatly the
minds of His followers.

Presently, when they had made some progress in
understanding the nature of His work and methods,
He imparted to them a share of His own power and
authority (Mark 3 14r " 15 ). They were ordained to
take upon themselves a portion of His labours
to preach, to heal, and to exorcise. This right to
delegate His power and office to them, even in a
measure, must have been a most important experi-
ence in their discipleship. They had not been for
very long His pupils ; neither had they had a
prolonged acquaintance with His methods. Like
others, they had been impressed by His power, and
lo ! now He had given a share of it to them, and

171

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

some of the things, at any rate, that He had been so
successful in performing, were now within the scope
of their abilities to accomplish. They might well
be astonished at this strange Master, who could not
only do works which no other man did, but could
give them power to perform such works also.
Obviously this must have been a most important
period in the mental awakening and in the educa-
tional development of the disciples, and must
likewise have caused them often to discuss their
Teacher among themselves. Then in 6 7ff - we find
them being sent out freshly endowed with power,
and commissioned to preach the Gospel of the
Kingdom. They were to go forth practically un-
prepared, as He had gone unprepared so far as
material things were concerned and to follow in
strict detail His own example, as when He had
entered upon His public labours. The great success
of their evangelistic efforts must have had a wonder-
ful effect upon themselves their work was done
in His name. Often, therefore, they must have
thought a'bout Him ; frequently, as they healed, or
exorcised, they would question in their own souls
whence He had such power ; and if they were men
of sound judgment, and we may believe they were,
they must have found themselves compelled not
seldom to admit Jesus was no ordinary rabbi.
Even Nicodemus, from observation at a distance,
is found to conclude that He was a " teacher come
from God," and affirms as proof of that, that no
man could do the miracles Jesus had done " except
God be with him " (John 3 2 ). How much greater,
then, must have been the effect produced upon the
disciples as they came daily into contact with Him,

172

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

and entered actually into the various experiences
which testified infallibly to the extraordinary power
He possessed ! These experiences, as we can easily
see, were further contributing to the preparation of
their minds for the greater revelation that was yet
to come. The confession of Simon at Cassarea was
not by any means " a bolt from the blue."

We find Jesus claimed to forgive sins very early
in His public ministry. It is, indeed, first met
with in St. Mark's Gospel in the second chapter,
in connection with the healing of the palsied man
borne of four, after our Lord had returned the
second time to Capernaum. This incident was a
rather striking instance of the triumph of faith,
whether on the part of the man himself or of
his friends. The words of Jesus spoken to the sick
man most certainly aroused attention : " Son, thy
sins be forgiven thee " (" Child, thy sins are receiving
forgiveness," Swete), 2 5 . We do not need to enter
into any discussion as to whether this man's disease
was the consequence of sin, or whether Jesus was only
accepting the Jewish position common at the time,
viz. that all disease was the result of sin. The point
before us is, that Jesus here explicitly claims the
power, the right, to forgive sins. The scribes who
happened to be present saw in this claim an infringe-
ment of the Divine prerogative ; and although they
did not speak openly, they muttered among them-
selves, saying, "Why doth this man thus speak
blasphemies ? Who can forgive sins but God
only ? " Jesus is represented as perceiving within
Himself that these thoughts are passing through
their minds, and challenges them openly. Deliber-
ately now, and publicly, He claims that He has

173

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

spoken these words with, full intent, and follows on to
say, " That ye may know that the Son of Man hath
power on earth to forgive sins (I will now prove
it by healing this man of his palsy)." We pass over
the evident intention of the Evangelist here to show
that Jesus had power to interpret the thoughts
passing through the minds of the scribes. The
point need not, indeed, be pressed, for it does not
follow there was any tiling supernatural in it. An
acute observer can often see when there is mental
opposition to the argument he is endeavouring to
establish. But there is no doubt His claim to
authority to forgive sins was most startling. That
was regarded, and we may say rightly regarded, as
exclusively and peculiarly a Divine privilege. Even
yet we will probably agree that " none can forgive
sins but God only." The very definition of sin,
that it is " any want of conformity unto, or trans-
gression of the law of God" (Shorter Catechism,
14), shows this to be the case, for if sin be a trans-
gression of God's law, only God can forgive it. This
claim of Jesus was certainly a thunderclap in the
theological heavens, both of the disciples and of the
fanatically orthodox scribes. The full force of the
situation will perhaps best be understood if we
remember the method of forgiveness familiar to the
Jews.

(1) Forgiveness itself had been a recognised thing
among them from the very earliest times. It was
the one thought which was especially prominent in
the observances of the Day of Atonement. The
priests were habitually engaged in pronouncing
absolution.

(2) A prerequisite to forgiveness was atonement

J 74

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

through a sin-offering. The victims' life had to be
taken and their blood sprinkled upon the altar.

(3) The distinction between " bloody " and
" bloodless " offerings must be remembered, and
that no sin-offering was bloodless, except in the case
of extreme poverty, when an offering consisting of
a " tenth of an ephah of fine flour " was allowed

(Lev. S llf -).

(4) There were cases, perhaps, in which it was
understood sin was forgiven without requiring a
particular sacrifice.

" Thou desirest not sacrifice ; else would I give it :
Thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit :
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise." Ps. 5i 16fL

Also Ps. 32 5 ; Isa. 43 25 , 55 7 , I 18 , etc.

It is extremely probable that in all these particular
references a sincere sacrificial system is presumed to
be in operation. But we cannot enter into that.
There is no doubt, notwithstanding these particular
instances, the usual practice was to look for absolution
through sacrifice. No itinerating rabbi would have
been likely to take upon himself the power to forgive
sins, even in the days of Jesus ; and in any event,
these scribes would not have recognised our Lord
to be a proper rabbi.

(5) Is it to be understood Jesus was claiming
priestly functions at this time, although He had no
right to these, not being of the tribe of Levi, nor
connected with the priesthood in any way ? Such
a claim would have been sternly resisted by the
priestly party.

175

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Now, as the disciples, as well as the rabbis, be-
lieved that only God could forgive sin, the moment
would be an exceedingly trying one for them, yet
as soon as Jesus declared that He would attest His
claim to such authority by the exercise of His power
to heal, they must have felt on safe ground again.
They had already witnessed marvellous things done
by Him, and possibly now had little fear of failure.

We can hardly exaggerate the importance of this
incident, and the effect it must have produced not
only upon the disciples, but upon all who were
present. Capernaum had already had experience of
the healing power of Jesus, but there were features
in this case that made it different from all previous
instances. The idea of forgiving sin in this way was
entirely new to the people, was a fresh claim put
forward by Jesus, and consequently led their minds
into quite a new channel. When thinking of the
occurrence afterwards, the more thoughtful must
have asked themselves whether their Master really
insisted upon Divine equality at this time. If He
had said, " Child, in the name and by the authority
of God, I say thy sins are forgiven thee," there
would possibly have been no objection raised ; He
would have been insisting then that He was no more
than a delegate from God, with authority. But He
speaks in His own name, and His word is again
with power. The right to heal those who are
morally sick is just as much His as the right to heal
those that are physically ill. Possibly the disciples
would be much exercised in their minds as to
whether they were prepared to acknowledge this
claim of Jesus to the full ; but the miracles they had
seen Him perform already, and this one in particular

176

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

of healing the paralytic man, would prepare them
still further to expect even greater and more
wonderful things from Him in the future. It is
more likely, however, in the excitement of all that
was happening around them, they did not yet see
the full significance of this incident, nor the position
taken up by Jesus in regard to it. All these things
were leading them on stage by stage, step by step, to
that time when they should be able to know assuredly
that He was the Christ of God.

In asserting His claim to forgive sins, Jesus
employs a phrase concerning Himself, for the first
time, which is noteworthy and has received a great
deal of attention : " But that ye may know that the
Son of Man hath power on earth," etc. It is
rather extraordinary that He should use this title
in reference to Himself on this occasion, without
a word of preparation, and indeed in answer to
the manifestly hostile challenge of the scribes who
were present. It would seem to have been a term
well known to them, otherwise He would not have
adopted it in the circumstances. The question,
then, arises whether there is involved in His remark
quoted above anything more than a claim to forgive
sins. A great deal of interest has been awakened
in the title, "the Son of Man," because it is
only used by our Lord Himself with reference to
Himself, and because it is believed to have been an
accepted Messianic title common among the Jews
about the beginning of our Christian era. What
is its significance ? The answer to that question
involves much thought and research. There are
differences of opinion which may be difficult to
reconcile. As a preliminary, however, we would

177

12

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

perhaps do well to keep the following words of
Dr. James Moffatt in mind : " It (the Son of Man)
is not a title to be isolated. The ' Father in
Heaven,' the ' Kingdom of God,' and the ' Son of
Man,' form a trinity of ideas which have developed
organically to the religious consciousness of Jesus,
and which are reciprocally to be defined and under-
stood ; in them His preaching has reached its
climax." (This is a quotation from Holtzman's
Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu" p. 54.) Dr.
Moffatt adds : " What the Son of Man specially
emphasises is the Divine mission of Jesus in con-
nection with the Messianic Kingdom " (The Theology
of the Gospels, p. 150). Probably most of us will be
agreed as to the " Divine mission of Jesus." Possibly
what we want to know is whether the words the
Son of Man admit of us saying Jesus was Himself
Divine ; or more exactly, was this, as He now used
it, a Messianic title, and was it so understood by all
those concerned ?

Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to endeavour
to ascertain what its significance was for the scribes,
because it is manifest that is the key to the use
of it by Jesus on this first occasion. Who was the
" Son of Man " in Jewish teaching ? Edersheim,
we regret to say, is not so helpful here as we would
expect. Practically all that he gives may be com-
pressed into two sentences : " But was He a mere
man, like even the most honoured of God's servants ?
Man, indeed ; but the ' Son of Man ' in the
emphatic and well understood sense of being the
Representative Man," etc. (p. 505, vol. L). In a
note he adds : " That the expression ' Son of Man '
p) was well understood as referring to the

178

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

Messiah, appears from the following anti-Christian
passage (Jes Taan, 6$b at bottom) : e If a man
shall say to thee I am God, he lies ; if he says I am
the Son of Man, his end will be to repent it,' " etc.
Is the situation so clear and definite as Edersheim
seems to think ? In other words, is it quite certain
that the term c Son of Man ' was generally under-
stood as having a Messianic reference ? If it were
so, then we are simply amazed that the scribes did
not object to its application on this very first
occasion of its employment. We certainly know
they did not admit that Jesus was the Messiah.
Further, if it was the purpose of our Lord thus
early to reveal Himself .as the Messiah by apply-
ing to Himself a well-known Messianic appellation,
was there any need of asking the questions that
He propounded at Caesarea Philippi ? And still
more urgently must we ask, Why did He speak to
Peter there as He did, " Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it
unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven "
(Matt. i6 17 ), or why did He command them to keep
this knowledge strictly to themselves (Mark 8 30 ) ?

No explanation of the use of the phrase " Son of
Man " can be acceptable which does not take the
confession at Caesarea Philippi fully into account.
It is quite likely some of the scribes who were
present at Capernaum on this occasion had come
from Jerusalem and would be acquainted with the
title " Son of Man," the origin of which many find
in Dan. 7 13 . They were certain, however, to be
acquainted with its use in Ezekiel, where it is found
much more frequently, and appears to be a designa-
tion for man in a general sense, or as we often use

179

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the word "humanity." In Daniel 7 the term
has a peculiar import given to it, for the Son of
Man " came with the clouds of heaven," and there
was given to him " a dominion and glory, and a
Kingdom that all people, nations, and languages
should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his
Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Now
this apocalypse gives its own explanation in verses 1 8
and 27 of the same chapter : " But the saints of the
most High shall take the Kingdom, and possess the
Kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. . . . And
the Kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of
the Kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be
given to the people of the saints of the most High,
whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and all
dominions shall serve and obey him." Possibly it is
true that the things predicated of this Kingdom are the
same as those predicated elsewhere of the Messiah's
Kingdom, e.g. Ps. 72 and various passages in Isaiah.
Kirkpatrick says of the former, " It is a Messianic
psalm." So also is Ps. 45. This author gives a
very interesting note on verse 17 of the psalm
first mentioned which is worth transcribing : " Ac-
cording to the Talmud and Midrash, ' Yinnon,' fir
(the qeri reading for p|? of the text), the word in
verse 17 which is rendered ' shall be continued ' or
* shall have issue,' is one of the eight names of the
Messiah. ' His name,' so the rabbis mystically
interpreted the passage, e is Yinnon.' Why is He
called Yinnon \ Because He will make those who
sleep in the dust to flourish, i.e. He will raise the
dead." In view, therefore, of the passages in the
Psalms and Isaiah, we might say the reference in

1 80

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

Daniel is Messianic ; but it is not very distinctly so.
The language there does not point with certainty
to any particular person, but seems decidedly to
refer to the " Saints of God," and these may be
possibly the people of Israel. The LXX trans-
lates " the Son of Man " of Daniel 7 wos avOpoirov,
without the article, properly taking the original as in-
definite. Dr. Whitehouse, in an article in Hastings'
Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, says: "The
similitudes of the Book of Enoch (about 100 B.C.)
give a yet more definite and distinguished r61e to
' the Son of Man.' Here He assumes a distinct per-
sonality and is evidently more than mere man : ' He
sits on God's throne which is His own throne,' has
an everlasting Kingdom and is supreme judge. In
many of the points referred to we see correspondence
with the declarations of Isaiah and the Psalmists
regarding the Messiah." The book appears to have
exercised a considerable influence in fixing a definite
connotation to the title " Son of Man," as it came
afterwards to be used. There is considerable
doubt as to the date of the " Similitudes." White-
house's exact words are "written probably after
100 B.C." That might of course mean 4 B.C.,
but he evidently seems to regard it much earlier
than that. Prof. Gould, in an article also on the
" Son of Man " in the same Dictionary, appears to
prefer a late date. He says : " In order to discover
how Jewish readers of the Book of Daniel in the
time shortly preceding and shortly following our
Lord's ministry interpreted the figure, ... we
turn to the evidence of the ' Similitudes.' . . .
The date of the ' Similitudes 'a later portion of
the Book of Enoch is more open to doubt.

181

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

R. H. Charles (Book of Enoch, p. 29) holds them to
have been written between 94-79 or 70-64 B.C.
Schiirer (H.J.P., u. iii. 68) places them somewhat
later : ' at the very soonest, in the time of Herod,'
i.e. between 37-4 B.C." It would be of some
help in our present investigations if we could be
sure of a date, but probably some time during the
reign of Herod the Great is as near as we can come
to the period when this book would be effecting
much influence. Assuming that to be so, we must
then ask whether there was time for it to have
exercised such a power in the intellectual and
religious world as to give fixed connotation to the
words, and that this import would be generally
known and accepted. Whether that was possible
will depend upon the view we take of the conditions
of the period, and even although the rabbis may
have been familiar with the " Similitudes," it is
doubtful if the common people would have been
generally acquainted with them. We think there is
positive evidence that the meaning was not quite
so commonly understood as is often supposed.
Take the passage in John I2 34 : "The people
answered him, We have heard out of the law that
Christ abideth for ever : and how sayest thou, The
Son of man must be lifted up ? who is this Son
of man ? " Let us note the situation carefully
as it appears here. Jesus has spoken of the " Son
of Man " being glorified (ver. 23) : then in verse 32
He declares plainly, " And I, if I be lifted up from
the earth, will draw all men unto me." Out of
this arises the question of verse 34. The remark of
the people that according to the law Messiah was
to abide for ever, possibly leaves it open, quite

182

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

legitimately, to infer that they understood the
Son of Man as a title for the Messiah, for the latter
word had not been used by Jesus. He had spoken
of the " Son of Man " in the one verse and of
Himself personally in the other. But does it not
also suggest some confusion as to the identity of the
individual designated the " Son of Man " ? Alford
in his commentary on John I2 34 says: "They
thought some other Son of Man, not the Messiah,
was meant ; because this lifting up (which they saw
implied taking away) was inapplicable to their idea
of the Messiah, usually known as the Son of Man."
Yet writing on the " Son of Man " (Matt. 8 20 ) he
says : " It appears from John I2 34 that the Jews
understood it to mean the Messiah." But do not
these statements seem to contradict each other ?
Be that as it may, we are justified in believing from
John I2 34 that there was some confusion at that
time as to the use of the title " Son of Man," and
it is, consequently, possible it was not during the
earlier part of the ministry of Jesus employed so
generally and exclusively as a Messianic designation
as many suppose. When, then, Jesus speaks to the
Jews in Mark 2 10 , using this phrase, it is apparently
with the same class of people He is arguing as in
John I2 34 , so that it is within the bounds of
probability these persons did not understand its
Messianic import. If they had, as we have hinted
before, they would have challenged His adoption of
it to Himself. It is more than possible that the
disciples did not realise its Messianic meaning, if it
had such at this time. They were brought up,
evidently, in a somewhat circumscribed sphere of
life, and the principal means of education and

183

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

instruction available for them was the synagogue ;
so that it is not unlikely that the Book of Enoch,
although it may have been known to scholars in
Jerusalem, was quite unknown to fishermen in
Galilee ; while, on the other hand, the phrase " Son
of Man," equal to " mortal," used so frequently by
Ezekie], would be very familiar to their ears ; and
it is very probable this would be the meaning they
would take from Jesus' use of the term. Moreover,
it corresponds in every detail with the situation
revealed at Capernaum.

But we have not exhausted all the possibilities
in this case. Leaving the followers of Jesus out of
account, we must recognise that there is nothing
improbable in suggesting that the scribes and even
Jesus were familiar with the teaching of the " Simili-
tudes," and that He was using the phrase " Son
of Man " deliberately and intentionally that the
disciples might not understand. This seems to be
the position taken up by Dr. D. W. Forrest in his
book The Christ of History and Experience. In a
note on p. 64 he says concerning the words " Son of
Man " : " Though on His lips it was a designation of
the Messiah, it was a veiled designation ; and pur-
posely so, as enabling Him on account of its diverse
meanings or allusions to introduce gradually into the
minds of His disciples the new and deeper con-
ception of Messiahship which alone He had come
to realise." It must be admitted that there is no
inherent impossibility in Jesus being acquainted
with the Book of Enoch. The incident which
happened in Jerusalem when he was twelve years of
age (Luke 2 41E -) shows that He was of an inquiring,
thoughtful disposition. He probably would seek to

184

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

know all that had been spoken of the Messiah, and
this more especially, as soon as the idea that He was
Himself the " anointed of God " began to suggest
itself to His mind. Let us accept, then, that it was
possible Jesus understood a Messianic significance in
the words " Son of Man " when He here spoke them.
We may similarly admit that the scribes were
familiar with this import, and understood it dis-
tinctly. The only persons to be kept in the dark
evidently were the disciples His friends ; while His
enemies, who had probably come to investigate the
position of affairs in Capernaum, and who were
clearly hostile, are to understand that He claims to
be Messiah. Was this likely ? Is it in harmony
with the whole atmosphere of the Gospel story ?
Jesus was never swift to throw the challenge in the
teeth of His enemies in this way, and if He had, they
would most certainly have taken it up. If they had
understood Him as claiming to be Messiah, we need
have no hesitation in thinking they would have
directed their attention to that, and not to His
claim to forgive sins. We hardly imagine they would
have had any reluctance in believing that Messiah
could thus forgive. The whole atmosphere of the
situation shows that what they objected to was that
a man should make such a claim. What was the idea
in Jesus charging His disciples to secrecy after
Csesarea Philippi, if He had Himself in this public
fashion proclaimed Himself to the scribes ? But
what purpose was to be secured by this veiled
designation ? If the disciples did not know that by
it Jesus was claiming to be Messiah, we cannot see
how it could help forward even " gradually the new
and deeper conception of Messiahship." There

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

were times when, no doubt, He used veiled terms
to convey instruction to His friends, which might or
might not be understood by others . Here, according
to Dr. Forrest's view, the position is exactly reversed,
and we cannot see how that can be maintained.

There is another possible suggestion, but its mere
statement practically involves its refutation. It
might be urged that Jesus, the disciples, and the
scribes all understood the Messianic import of the
words the " Son of Man," but as the conception that
had generally been entertained regarding Messiah
was so exalted, and the predictions concerning His
Kingdom represented it as so entirely magnificent,
nobody present ever thought that Jesus, in saying
" The Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive
sins," really meant to refer to Himself, because He
was so decidedly at variance with all their ideas and
thoughts respecting the Promised of God. The
words of Jesus just quoted would in this case be
utterly without point He had undoubtedly an
individual before His mind when He spoke them ;
and we wish to know whether any of those present
believed that that individual was Messiah. We do
not think so.

We feel it necessary, then, to abandon all these,
explanations and come back to the passage exactly
as it stands, rendering it as indefinite : " But that
ye may know a son of man that a man in the
fullest and best sense, if you will has power on
earth to forgive sins." At the moment of first utter-
ance we do not believe there was anyMessianicsugges-
tion in the term. It is an Old Testament phrase
which Jesus may have adopted from EzeHel rather
than from Daniel, although it is not improbable

1 86

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

that He toot it from the Psalms " Son of
Man" (indefinite) is found in Ps. 8 4 ,8o 17 , 144?.
Neither the disciples nor the scribes were astonished,
therefore, at the appropriation of the name by our
Lord. Their minds were occupied with different
things altogether. The essence of the situation is
found in die insistence of Jesus that He had the
right to forgive sins. And not only so, but, according
to the term He used (Son of Man), He was claiming
this for humanity. This was a blow at the very
foundation of their present ecclesiastical system ; it
was a complete abrogation of the law of Moses, a
disannulling of sacrifice, and an abandonment of
the temple and its priesthood. And, of course, it
could not be tolerated, but must be resisted by all
means. The shadow of the cross has fallen upon
Jesus at Capernaum ; perhaps the opposition now
awakened was only satisfied when His opponents
saw Him ignominiously put to death at Calvary.

The name " Jesus " was one of the very commonest
among the Jewish people. It possessed a certain
significance originally, as we know from the Hebrew
word from which it is derived. Probably that mean-
ing was almost lost in the passing of the centuries,
or through the very familiarity which resulted
from the use of the name. Its purport was again
asserted, and its full significance emphasised when
the child born at Bethlehem was called "Jesus,"
" for he shall save his people from their sins "
(Matt. I 21 ). Is there a possible parallel, or even a
resemblance, in the use of the words " Son of Man " ?
These may certainly have been a common enough
designation at first, and in general use among Jews
were, possibly, equivalent to our word " mankind."

187

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

This was, we think, the meaning that Jesus intended
when He spoke of a "Son of Man " in Mark 2 10 and
perhaps in 2 28 , although here all the Synoptics make
the reference definite : " The Son of Man is Lord
also of the Sabbath."

When, however, we come to 8 31 , " And he began
to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many

'

things, and be rejected of the elders," etc., a different
significance in the use of the phrase is discovered.
If we now ask, Who is the Son of Man? there can
be no doubt about the answer. Jesus must clearly
be referring to Himself. But who was He ? The
reply is in the words of Peter, " Thou art the
Christ." The scene at Cassarea Philippi has now
taken place and Jesus has revealed Himself. He is
the Messiah He is also the " Son of Man," It is
quite evident that the import of the phrase in 8 31
is essentially different from its use in 2 10 . Apart
from the history of the words, there can be little
doubt now of their meaning, and one can no longer
resist the inference that the " Messiah " and the
" Son of Man " refer to the same Person. Perhaps
there had been a Messianic content in the latter title,
as it was regarded by some of the Jews already, but
the appropriation of such names eventually by Jesus
Himself filled them with greater fulness. To the
Jews there would be some obscurity in His adoption
of this title, because He was interpreting the pro-
phecies and psalms spiritually, and they were
understanding them literally. But there can be no
doubt now that He claimed to be the Messiah and
that He called Himself the Son of Man. Is there in
the designating of Himself by this title a deliberate
claim, then, to be Messiah ? That is doubtful at the

188

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

first, but we think it was finally involved in His
continued use of it after Peter's confession. The
name " Jesus " was not perhaps very significant at
the beginning of our Lord's career, but after the
crucifixion was fully apprehended, its meaning was
more highly appreciated. We make no reference
here to the argument offered by some scholars that
as Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and as there is no definite
article in that language, He must always have used
the expression indefinitely, even in Mark 8 31 . It is
doubtful if it has been fully established that Jesus
only spoke Aramaic (Expositor, vi. p. 81). But we
think it is straining the situation to suggest that the
words spoken in 8 31ff - did not refer to a particular
individual and that. individual Himself. There was
some point when the title received a clear Messianic
import, and that was, we believe, in the conversation
after the great confession.

We find, often, from the Old Testament that
names meant a great deal to the Jews and were
frequently given for a particular reason. This
practice continued down to New Testament times
(Matt. I 21 , i6 18 ). Was there a similar idea under-
lying the names given to our Lord, e.g. He sometimes
called Himself the " Son of Man," but nobody else
ever did ? He was spoken of by others as the " Son
of God," but He never applied that name to
Himself. Perhaps this means that He was a real,
true son of the race even though men should regard
Him as so superior that He was worthy to be called
the Son of God. Right at the opening of his Gospel
St. Mark uses this title, and we have briefly noticed
it there. We must now dwell for a few sentences
more particularly upon these words than we did

189

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

then, being prepared, however, to expect a more
advanced position in the title of the Gospel than
may possibly be discovered in the body of it, for
reasons already explained in connection with verse I.
We must be careful, as Prof. Stalker points out, 1 not
to import into this " name " more than it was
intended to contain. In our loose way of thinking
we sometimes appear to accept it as absolutely
certain that the phrase is an infallible proof of the
Divinity of Jesus ; but are we quite justified in doing
so ? Let us briefly trace the evolution of this title
so far as we can do so. (i) We begin with Gen.
6 2j 4 , where we meet the expression in the plural
DVifwn ^1. Three times in Job it is similarly
found I 6 , 2 1 , and 38 7 . Now, it is difficult to say
whether these references apply to angels, as some
think, or merely to men being " sons of God," of
course, because they were brought into existence by
Him. The last passage from Job seems to apply
to angels, while it is more probable the others refer
to men, for apparent reasons. " When the morning
stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted
for joy " is surely a creation ode. (2) There are
then quite a number of passages in which it is Israel
or Ephraim that is called the " Son " " first-
born," the word now being in the singular (Ex. 4 22 ;
Jer. 3 1 9 ' 20 ; Hos. n 1 ). (3) There are two psalms in
which the words used evidently are personal, and
designate an individual who is clearly Messiah:
" Thou art my Son : this day have I begotten thee "
(Ps. a 7 ) ; "I will appoint him as firstborn, most high
above the kings of the earth" (Ps. 89 27 ). This
psalm is probably exilic ; the titles " son " and
1 Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.

190

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

" firstborn " are transferred to the King, who is
Israel's representative. It is very likely it had some
influence in giving Messianic significance not only
to the title " Son of God," but also to another one
which we shall presently notice " Son of David."

If we are to discover the meaning intended by
St. Mark of the words we are now considering as
applied to Jesus, it will probably be helpful to take
up each passage where they are used, separately;
there are not many of them. " Thou art my beloved
son," uttered at the baptism and transfiguration,
have already been before us, and as we shall need to
refer to them again when we come to the considera-
tion of the transfiguration, we therefore defer any
further discussion of them at this point, but proceed
with the other passages. The title " Son of God "
is in the Earliest Gospel addressed to Jesus (apart
from the baptism instance) first by demoniacs in 3 11
" And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down
before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son
of God." Again, the demoniac at Gadara as he is
approaching, " Cried with a loud voice, saying,
What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the
most high God ? " (5 7 ). To these two passages may
be added I 24 as cognate with them on this point:
" Let us alone ; what have we to do with thee,
thou Jesus of Nazareth ? art thou come to
destroy us ? I know thee who thou art, the Holy
One of God." Swete says : " The earliest confession
of-sonship seems to have come from evil spirits,
who knew Jesus better than He was known by His
own disciples" (p. 57). Now here is a problem
that is very difficult to solve. How was it these
mentally deranged people thus early recognised

191

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Jesus ; indeed, even before He had made His claims
definitely known, and one of them so very early as
the time of His entrance upon His public work ?
Probably a satisfactory answer cannot be given.
It is an interesting point, however, to note the fact
that in the present day, persons who are mentally
afflicted are frequently very susceptible to the
influences of religion ; and a mild form of punish-
ment occasionally adopted in some of the asylums
is to refuse permission to attend public worship.
The psychological effect of such religious worship
and exercises upon people so diseased would possibly
provide a fruitful field for investigation for those
qualified to enter upon it. It would be quite wrong
to suppose certainly, that because of the peculiar
form of the malady, such persons are incapable of
being favourably influenced by religion. The
varieties of mental disease leave many of them quite
sane in regard to such matters, and wonderfully acute
in forming judgments. Many a story could be
related in illustration, but we refrain. Influenced
by a consideration of modern cases, however, we
are bound to say it would be very gratuitous to
assume that all these persons who testified to Jesus
did not understand what they were saying, or that
their testimony was utterly valueless. Why, then,
did not Jesus accept it ? Well, probably the best
answer is that it was given too early, before sufficient
preparations had been made on the public mind
to receive it. Even the intellects and hearts of the
disciples, notwithstanding their close intimacy with
their Master, required a very considerable time for
preparation. Jesus also, no doubt, refused the
testimony of the unclean spirits, because it could

192

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

have been so easily discredited as coming from
such people ; quite obviously it would not have
strengthened His position. It would have been
regarded as tainted evidence at that time, and with
all our advancement in the understanding of mental
diseases, we are not certain it would not be so
regarded still. The opposing Jews would not have
hesitated to take advantage of such a circumstance,
for, as we know, they attempted to explain His
miraculous powers in this respect by a reference to
evil agency. But although we may not be able to
account for this early recognition of Jesus by these
people, one striking thing that we ought to remember
is, that what they said of Jesus, He afterwards
claimed as a fact for Himself. Also we must not
forget that they were free from all bias and pre-
conception their infirmity aiding them in these
directions . Their mental condition was phenomenal,
and they were, therefore, less suspicious of anything
that was abnormal. They were for some reason
more susceptible to the influences of the truth.
Even the disciples were filled with prepossessions
these demoniacs never experienced ; they had, in a
sense, the eyes of a child, and the convicting force
of the power and goodness of Jesus encountered no
opposition in their minds, and thus early they
realised who He was. Their words are, perhaps, a
witness to the effect of the life of Christ where it
had no deliberate, active or latent, opposition to
encounter. Jesus refused to allow them to testify
to Him, but He never said their statements were
untrue, He never contradicted one of them. After-
wards, He made the same claims precisely for Him-
self. Still, it is most impressive to find that they

r 93 13

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

alone thus early recognised Him. There are,
perhaps, more things in the world of spirits than
we wot of ; notwithstanding the increasing interest
taken in the occult and spiritual in these times, it is
doubtful if any solid progress has been made. It is
deeply interesting to reflect that astronomy, for
example, is a much more advanced science than
psychology.

Only two other passages require to be examined,
viz. I4 61 and I5 39 . The former verse is as follows:
" Again the high priest asked him, and said unto
him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? "
This is, of course, a different form of the same
expression possibly the High Priest was too scrupu-
lous to use any definite Divine name on this occasion.
Besides, " the Son of the Blessed " just meant " the
Son of God " ; the pre-eminently blessed could only
be God. The answer of Jesus is rather impressive :
" And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the Son of
man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
in the clouds of heaven." We have said that Jesus
did not use this title Son of God Himself; neither
does He appear willing sometimes to accept it even
from others. He acknowledges in answer to the
High Priest that He is " the Son of the Blessed " ;
but His use of the phrase " Son of Man " in His
reply shows that for some reason He prefers it.
In I3 32 it may be concluded that He refers to
Himself as " the Son," but does not use the exact
words the " Son of God." " But of that day and
that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither th.e Son, but the
Father." In the parable of the wicked husbandmen
(i2 lfi -) the reference is clearly in the same direction.

194

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

The last time the words " Son of God " are
applied in this Gospel to Jesus is in I5 39 , in which
the centurion is made to say, " Truly this man was
the Son of God." Literally we should read with
Menzies as in R.V. margin, " A Son of God." This
author commenting on the verse now before us
says: "Instead of utter languor and prostration,
Jesus exhibits at the close of life a triumphant
vigour, which makes the centurion think him not
an ordinary man but a hero or a demigod surpassing
the measure of human strength." Probably this is
correct; we do not know enough of the religious
and spiritual condition of the centurion to dogmatise.
Swete says : " vlos 6eov is certainly more than
SIKCUOS, but the centurion, who borrowed the
words from the Jewish priests (Matt. 27 41ff -) could
scarcely have understood them even in the Messianic
sense." We wonder whether it was impossible for
the centurion to have been a proselyte, or even a
Jew ? In either of these cases it would make a
considerable difference, perhaps, in our interpreta-
tion of his words. Nothing, however, can possibly
be gained by dwelling on that point further.

In all these references, then, we find that the
title " Son of God " was used by those who were
outside the circle of Jesus, and never by Himself
in the exact phrase, although the thought itself
the idea was perhaps acceptable to Him. It is not
easy in these circumstances to estimate the Christo-
logical value of this title. Probably as it was at
first used by maniacs, or, to adopt the more Scriptural
phrase, by people having unclean spirits, very little
weight would be ascribed to it either by the disciples
or by others ; and this more especially so, seeing

195

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

that Jesus on all such occasions commanded those
who spoke of Him as the Son of God to keep silence.
This would no doubt induce those who heard
Him thus speak to conclude that He was not
making any such claim, and so we are probably
justified in believing that the employment of this
title by those already mentioned did not contribute
much to the advancement of the Christological
development in the Gospel. We face quite a
different position when we come to the use of the
words by the High Priest : every one now present
is cognisant of all that is involved in this claim by
Jesus, and as we have seen, it is put to Him in the
most solemn and direct form, and His answer is
equally solemn and emphatic, " I am." But we
know that some time before this stage has been
reached, the disciples and other followers of Jesus
have already arrived at the highest possible Christo-
logical height. The explicit declaration of the
Sonship of Jesus must, we believe, be found rather
at the baptism and transfiguration than in the use
of the words " Son of God " by those who were
possessed by unclean spirits. Nevertheless, we can-
not say that even this had not some contribution
to give to the intellectual development of the
disciples respecting the person of Jesus. When they
took these words along with the experiences through
which they were passing, the title and what was
involved in it would at least give point and direction
to the speculations concerning Him which must have
now been occupying their minds.

The references to the Son of David in our
Gospel really belong to the next section, but per-
haps we may anticipate and discuss them here, and

196

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

that

were

so complete the study of the names
applied to, or adopted by, Jesus.

In a Gospel which was probably compiled chiefly
for the use of Romans we need not expect to find
Him often spoken of as the " Son of David." As a
matter of fact, there are only two occasions when
this title seems to have been used, and the employ-
ment of it was neither by Jesus nor His disciples.
Blind Bartimaeus appealed to Him at Jericho in
the words, " Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy
on me" (Mark io 47L ). This is generally accepted
as a Messianic designation, and coming so late in
the ministry of Jesus there is really nothing against
that view. Menzies points out that it is the " first
public and unrebuked recognition of Jesus in the
character of Messiah." As such, it is certainly
interesting, indeed we may say even important.
It is, therefore, very strange that it should come
from a blind beggar, although he was probably a
Jew. It decidedly appears somewhat noteworthy
that the first public recognition of Jesus as "Son
of God " should come from those who had unclean
spirits, and that the first unchecked public declara-
tion of His royal lineage that He was the " Son of
David," the long-looked-for Messiah should be
distinctly traceable to the utterance of a common
beggar.

It would appear as if the poor and outcast were
given powers of understanding and appreciation that
were denied to others, reminding us of the words
of Jesus, " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven
and earth, because thou hast hid these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes. Even so, Father : for so it seemed good in thy

197

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

sight " (Matt, i I 25L ). But although the name is thus
publicly given by a wayside mendicant, it is not
forgotten. The enthusiasm and excitement started
outside Jericho are, in a measure, maintained until
Jerusalem is reached. And this name once given,
is found so appropriate by the crowd of admirers
who now follow Jesus, that they can find no better
when they give Him a welcoming ovation as He
enters into Jerusalem publicly recognised as Messiah
for the first time. Mark, in his account, does not
give the precise word on this occasion, but he
preserves the idea: " Hosanna ; Blessed "is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord : Blessed be the
kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the
name of the Lord : Hosanna in the highest " (n 9f -).
Luke, in his parallel passage, is very general, but has
a recollection of his own account of the nativity :
" Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of
the Lord : peace in heaven, and glory in the
highest " (Luke I9 38 ). Matthew, writing for Jews,
as we would expect, is most specific, and furnishes
some fuller details of the scene : " And the multi-
tudes that went before, and that followed, cried,
saying, Hosanna to the son of David : Blessed is
he that cometh in the name of the Lord ; Hosanna
in the highest" (Matt. 2i 9 ). Substantially the
accounts agree in recognising Jesus as the Son of
David, i.e. as the Messiah. Probably the warmth
of the enthusiasm of His followers now reaches its
highest point. Their doubts, their hesitations, their
waiting have all come to an end ; the King has at
last come to His city to claim His own. The royal
house of David had for long been but a bare tree
deprived of all its verdure and beauty ; yea, but a

198

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

barren stump in an inhospitable soil ; yet now the
words of the great prophet Isaiah were to be
fulfilled : " And there goes forth a sprout out of
the stump of Jesse, and a shoot out of its roots brings
forth fruit " (Isa. 1 1 1 , Delitzsch). This must surely
be the day of which he spoke, declaring that the
sprout from the root of Jesse shall be " a banner "
a rallying-point for -die peoples, which even the
nations shall seek, and " its resting-place is glorious."
As this notion took hold of the fancy of many in
the crowded city, they may have taken up the shout,
" Hosanna to the son of David," without much
thought or conviction in their minds a crowd is
wont to do that. Yet there were some present who
were now thoroughly convinced, and perhaps even
satisfied. These were, of course, the disciples and
others who had been close attendants upon the
ministry of Jesus those waiting for the " consola-
tion of Israel " and yet probably, even now, they
could not explain how that which they hoped for
and expected could be realised. There were cer-
tainly many reasons which urged them on to the full
assurance that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the
Most High; nevertheless, things were about to
happen that would shake that faith to its very founda-
tion. Our Lord in thus riding into Jerusalem in
literal fulfilment of the words of Zech. 9 9 must have
appealed strongly to the imagination of His country-
men. He possibly adopted this method deliberately
with that purpose in view. His action made it
quite clear to all who saw Him that He most
certainly regarded Himself as the Messiah. And so,
for an hour, the city echoed and re-echoed its
welcome as He passed through its streets. Happy

199

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

hearts were in that crowd, and therefore they could
sing and shout some, perhaps, were ready even to
draw swords in Messiah's cause. It was but the
glory of a December sun, passing away so swiftly, to
be succeeded by the keen and biting frost. The
Messianic conception of the multitude and that of
Jesus were so fundamentally different that soon the
shouts died away, and the vision of glory passed into
a halo of suffering.

There is a further passage Mark i2 35ff - in
which it almost seems as if Jesus argues against the
Messiah being the Son of David. His argument
turns upon a quotation from Ps. no :

" Jehovah's oracle unto my Lord,

Sit th.ou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool."

The line of discussion which Jesus takes is brought
out by the following paraphrase : " The scribes and
Pharisees allege that Messiah is David's son ; but is
that quite correct ? What does David himself say
in an important psalm ? Under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit he calls the Messiah Lord ' The
Lord said unto my Lord.' Now, if David thus
calls Him Lord, whence is He then his son ? " Jesus
here assumes that this psalm is Messianic, and that
David is in spirit referring to the Christ in the
words " my Lord." We are not concerned with the
discussion except to show that the purpose He
evidently had before Him was not to deny that
Messiah was to be David's son, but rather to insist
that He was more a Person different from, and
greater than, the son of David. He was possibly

200

INFLUENCE OF THE MESSIANIC TITLES

in this way endeavouring to point out the wrong
conceptions they were entertaining concerning the
Messiah ; that, as a matter of fact, they were thinking
too much of physical descent, and of a temporal
ruler, and overlooking other attributes in the
promised Messiah that were of far greater import-
ance, and which they might have discovered in
Himself. It is not necessary, however, to dwell
further upon this point at this stage, as it will come
up generally for consideration when we deal with the
Messianic conception itself. It is quite clear that
this discussion was initiated by Jesus, either, as St.
Matthew puts it, as a challenge to the theologians of
the day, or, as St. Mark's version suggests, for the
purpose of instructing the people. In both cases
really the intention indisputably was to lead their
thoughts to a higher and truer idea of Messiah.
The use of this title, however, coming so late
in Christ's ministry would tend to confirm those
impressions of His personality already formed by
His followers rather than contribute anything that
was essentially new.

20 1

CHAPTER VIII

MESSIANIC IDEALS

THE thoughts entertained regarding the Messiah
about this time present a theme of considerable
moment, and it is necessary to consider it before we
come into direct touch with the declaration made at
Csesarea Philippi. Whatever notions on the subject
were common among the Jews as a whole, would cer-
tainly be shared by the disciples ; and just as soon as
their curiosity concerning Jesus began to be awakened,
they would be seeking for confirmation or otherwise
of their preconceptions of the Messiah, in the life
and conduct of their Master. Yet, although they
were unaware of it, they and many of their contem-
poraries were looking at Him through spectacles
that had been coloured by their previous religious
training and education. Edersheim tells us (vol. ii.
p. 1 60) that while " so far as we can gather from the
Gospel narratives, no objection was ever taken to
the fulfilment of individual prophecies in Jesus," yet
" the general conception which the rabbis had
formed of the Messiah differed totally from what was
presented by the prophet of Nazareth." Later on we
shall endeavour to ascertain what was the Messianic
ideal before the mind of Jesus ; just now, it may help
us to discover this radical difference between Him
and the rabbis, if we can find out in a general way
what was the Messianic conception of the latter.

202

MESSIANIC IDEALS

Perhaps we cannot do better than follow the
example of the writer of the first chapter of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, where, in setting before him
the task of proving the superiority of Jesus over the
angels, he makes appeal to certain psalms as speci-
fically proving the superlative greatness of the Son.
This is to us an illustration of the interpretation of
such passages as they were commonly understood
about the time of our Lord, and, consequently,
reveals so far the Jewish ideal of Messiah. Every
one of the psalms so quoted by this author singularly
enough has the kingly and victorious idea as its
dominant note. We must bear in mind the great
influence poetry has always had upon a nation, and
more especially upon a people like the Israelites,
whose exigencies and national misfortunes drove
them frequently to find solace and inspiration in
these songs. The passionate patriotism, as well as
the religious fervour, of the nation led their poets
oftentimes to dream and sing of better, more
glorious days ; and through these inspiring strains
the downtrodden, exiled people not seldom fed the
flame of hope within their hearts and encouraged
themselves by singing over these " Songs of Zion."
We may expect to find their expectation of a coming
Deliverer distinctly and beautifully enshrined in the
psalms. We cannot trace it in its every phase as it
is discoverable in the Psalter ; the following summary
will be, perhaps, sufficient :

(1) Messiah as triumphant King over a glorious
Kingdom : Ps. 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89, no, 132.

(2) The Messiah in affliction and suffering : Ps. 22,
69, 109, and perhaps 35, 41, 55.

(3) The Messiah as Son of Man : Ps. 8, 80, also 16

203

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

and 40, where the idea is found but not the name
" Son of Man." We have the opposite in Ps. 146,
where the expression is discovered but not the
Messianic idea.

To these passages many others in the Old Testa-
ment can be added, but particularly those from the
poets and prophets who refer to the future glory
and greatness of Israel. Such, e.g.* as Isa. 60, in
which the coming splendour and magnificence, as
well as the complete triumph, of Zion and Jerusalem
are described. Or the forty-ninth chapter, in which
Israel is to become the servant of Jehovah, " to raise
up the tribes of Jacob," and be a " light to the
Gentiles." Or the fortieth, which calls for adequate
preparation for the coming of the Lord, particularly
applied in the Gospels to the appearing of the
Messiah. Or the thirty-second and thirty-third,
wherein are described the King in His righteous rule,
and the revelation of His glory. We know also that
there are passages in Malachi, Zechariah, Micah,
and several other books of the Old Testament having
references to the Messiah all sounding loudly,
clearly, and insistently what we may call the
imperialistic note. It is true there are other passages
pitched in a minor key whose strains are threatening,
sad, and sorrowful. The fifty- third chapter of
Isaiah will immediately suggest itself to our minds
and all the references in that prophecy to the
"suffering servant." Those psalms, too, which we
have placed in the second group and which deal with
the sufferings of Messiah, especially the twenty-
second, and such a verse as Dan. 9 26 , " And after
threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
but not for himself," etc., are particularly of this

204

MESSIANIC IDEALS

plaintive character. Akin to these will be those
pictures which reveal the Messiah as no political
potentate, but a moral and spiritual reformer, such
as Isa. 6 1 and Mai. 3. The question may be asked,
seeing that there are such abundant indications that
Messiah was to be " despised and rejected," to
experience suffering and deep humiliation, How was
it possible that the Jews so completely ignored such
passages ? Possibly we may answer that the other
more glorious references are even more frequent
and more emphatic than these, and, consequently,
they would make a deeper impression upon the mind
of the reader. Besides, they were just the very
thing that the people wanted. When a man is in
distress, it is something inspiring and hopeful for
which he craves . Very likely any other nation placed
in the same position as that in which the Jews often
found themselves, would have acted in precisely the
same way in this matter. More than one soldier
in the recent Great War has made the admission,
that the thought which often helped our men
bravely to keep guard in the face of a watchful
enemy was the memory of home, and expectation
of coming days when war should be no more. When
the people of Israel and Judah were overrun by their
enemies, when their land was spoiled, and irrevocable
destruction threatened everything that was dear,
and when at last they were carried into captivity, it
was not plaintive songs glorifying suffering, not even
anthems in praise of heroic endurance unto death,
or of steadfast patience under adversity, that they
wished to sing. They, too, were often charmed by
the prospect of a coming day when they should
return to their own land ; when a great Captain

205

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

should arise who would lead them on to victory, and
when that victory should be so complete that
" every boot of the booted warrior in the fight, and
the garments rolled in blood ; even all shall be for
burning ; for fuel of fire " (Isa. 9 5 ) ; or, as it is put,
perhaps more plainly, in the short apocalypse found
in the second chapter of this prophecy, and which
so picturesquely portrays the ultimate triumph of
Israel, the universality of Jehovah worship, and the
unbroken peacefulness of Messiah's reign (Isa. 2 2 " 5 ).
In the seventy-second Psalm we have a similar
picture of the expectation of the Jews concerning
the Messianic King and Kingdom. These portions
of Isaiah, this Psalm, and other passages in the Old
Testament which need not occupy us particularly,
reveal, as we think, in a vivid way the Messianic ideal
of the Jews. The religion of Israel was to rise above
all other religions ; it was to be so magnificently
glorious as to draw the eyes of the wondering world,
and the nations and kingdoms were to flock to Zion.
There the all- victorious King was to reign in right-
eousness, yet in unbroken peace ; for all peoples
should bow down before Messiah, all shoulid serve
Him. He was to be the conqueror of the world,
and His Kingdom was to be " an everlasting
Kingdom." Still,

" He conquered but to save."

Considering the political fortunes of God's chosen
people, remembering all the promises that had been
made concerning them to the fathers of the race,
from Abraham downwards, and recollecting also
that many of these promises did not seem yet to
have been fulfilled, the Jews would have been less

206

MESSIANIC IDEALS

than human if they had not looked forward to the
days of promised glory and splendour, and overlooked
or forgotten those of gloom and suffering, which were
foretold in certain passages of the Old Testament.
Indeed, these had sometimes been interpreted as
referring to the troubles and sorrows of Israel
herself ; and in any case, it is worthy of note that
the two most impressive passages denoting suffering
Ps. 22; Isa. 53 conclude on a triumphant note.
The Psalm declares, " A seed shall serve him ; it
shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
They shall come, and declare His righteousness unto
a people that shall be born, that he hath done this."
There is, it is true, a question of interpretation here,
but it does not affect the point, which is, " Earth's
mightiest are but mortals, and must yield their
homage to the King of Kings " (Kirkpatrick, The
Psalms, sp. 122). The inspiring finish to Isa. 53 is
very familiar: "He shall see of the travail of his
soul, and shall be satisfied. . . . Therefore will I
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong." And even if
we adopt the translation of Delitzsch it does not
lessen the inspiring close : " Because of the travail
of his soul, he will see, will refresh himself : through
his knowledge will he obtain righteousness, my
righteous Servant, for the many, and their iniquities
will he take upon himself. Therefore will I give
him a share with the great, and with the strong
will he share spoil." We see, then, that these
passages which speak of suffering, distress, and death
were not much dwelt upon by the Jews ; and,
moreover, that, even when we take them into
account, the day of stress and storm is easily forgotten

207

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

in the promised serenity and glorious tranquillity of
the approaching evening.

It only requires to be stated that the political and
national, indeed we might add the religious, con-
ditions of the Jewish people about the beginning
of the Christian era were such as to induce the
people to cling with still greater tenacity, if that
was possible, to the idea of a Messiah whose
Kingdom was to be political rather than spiritual.
The Jews were always a restive nation, difficult to
keep in subjection, and it would appear that after
the success of the Maccaba3an uprising they certainly
became more eager to strike against the Roman
power. It is but just to affirm that when their
national hopes seemed most completely blighted
and withered, then their patriotism burned with
glowing ardour and even beauty. Possibly it was
one of the few national virtues that remained to
connect them with the more glorious days of the
past. They were just as ardently longing in the
days of Jesus Christ as they were in the time of
Judas Maccabseus, that God would

" Grant a leader, bold and brave,
If not to conquer, born to save."

It is not, however, to be assumed that the Jewish
Messianic ideal is exhausted in the figure of a great
and successful military leader who was also to be a
wise and just King. The nature of the Kingdom, to
some extent, coloured the picture of the King which
they fancied i.e to say, an everlasting Kingdom
required an everlasting King. To attain to world-
wide sovereignty required a ruler who was himself
omnipotent. The Jewish notion of Messiah, in

208

MESSIANIC IDEALS

some of its aspects, may not have required a Divine
Being; in others it most certainly did, and the
people were partially prepared for such a Divine
Ruler by the theocratic character of the first
Kingdom of Israel. In any case, nothing less than
a Divine Being will satisfy the description, or outline,
of the Messiah child promised in Isa. 7, and more
fully referred to in Isa. 9 : " Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel " (7 14 ) ; " For unto us a child is born,
unto us a son is given : and the government shall
be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The ever-
lasting Father, The Prince of Peace " (9 6 ). These
titles were, as Principal G. A. Smith remarks, "too
generous, perhaps, for a mere mortal, notwithstand-
ing all the argument of Jewish and other writers
who have endeavoured to explain away or water
down the strength of the passage." Delitzsch also
finds them to be Messianic, and there is little doubt
they are so intended by the prophet. When we
recall that names were often bestowed with deliberate
significance among the Jews, and remember that
this practice is particularly noticeable in the earlier
Isaiah, we can easily see that those which we have just
quoted must have possessed a rich and suggestive
import to the people, such, indeed, as would lead
them to regard Messiah as Divine. We are bound
to insist that it is a most extraordinary conception
or vision that describes a child as the everlasting
Father, and the offspring of an unknown virgin as
the mighty God, or Hero-God, if that is preferred.
It is well-nigh impossible, at this date, to appreciate
fully the influence such passages as these would

209

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

have upon the minds of the Jews in moulding their
thoughts concerning the Messiah. Yet they are
not the only ones of this nature. In Jer. 23 5f - we
meet another Messianic reference in which the
Lord is to raise unto David a Branch, " and his
name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our
righteousness" ("Ppia mrp). This is cited in the
Midrash Miche 570 as one of the eight names of
the Messiah. Now, none of the titles given in
Isaiah, or elsewhere in the Old Testament, can
excel this in suggestive significance. To realise that,
we have only to think of the history of the word mrp ;
and when we discover it deliberately applied to the
Messiah, there seems only one conclusion possible,
viz. that the King of David who was to come
was also mrp, who had been the Good Shepherd
of Israel throughout all the past history the
Righteous and Holy God.

Bruce says : " The Messiah looked for by the Jews
in general was merely a man, though a very superior
one, the ideal man endowed with extraordinary
gifts " (Training of the Twelve, p. 168). We doubt
if that is quite in accordance with the facts presented
in Old Testament history, and which have been
just now briefly considered. Besides, the quotation
itself presents its own difficulties of interpretation,
for the " mere man " at the beginning of the
sentence becomes in the next clause " a very superior
one," and disappears altogether in the final clause,
where we find an ideal man endowed with extra-
ordinary gifts." Possibly this latter conception is not
very far from the view we have been endeavouring
to establish ; but keeping it in mind, we do not very
well see how Prof. Bruce was justified in stating that

210

MESSIANIC IDEALS

" the Messiah, looked for by the Jews in general
was merely a man," taking this last phrase in its
usual sense.

Such ideas as these titles would suggest, or as the
glowing pictures which the prophets painted would
inspire, were entertained by the people of Israel in
the days of Jesus ; and the higher the conception
they formed of the Messiah, the more impossible
must it have appeared that the Carpenter from
Nazareth could be that Wonderful, Counsellor,
Mighty God, and Everlasting Father. It must soon
have become evident to any man, that to fulfil the
programme of the Jews, a person was required of
far greater resourcefulness than Jesus could ever
possibly possess. So that for Him to insist that
He was Messiah must have appeared as the height
of folly, because there seemed no way by which
He could successfully play the part. And, recognis-
ing the situation as it existed, this may explain why
our Lord did not straightway claim to be the long-
expected One. If this be so, herein He showed
His wisdom. His first work was to endeavour to
dispossess the minds of men of those preconceptions
that they had formed of Messiah and His Kingdom.
It would be wrong to say, however, and yet it
is sometimes affirmed, that the Messiah they
anticipated was one of their own creating. Nay,
indeed, it was quite otherwise. Most certainly
they believed they had laid hold of the promises
of God, and that in these they had abundant
justification for the hopes they entertained of a
redeemed and glorified Israel. Messiah was to
restore all things. That they blinked at and over-
looked passages which did not suit their view, we

211

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

know. Yet we do not marvel at this, because some
of these appeared utterly opposed to the promises
that had been given them throughout the ages.
It might not be any exaggeration to state that the
Old Testament practically revealed two Messiahs
apparently inconsistent and irreconcilable the
Suffering Servant of Jehovah and Immanuel the
Glorious King, Son of David. Their national cir-
cumstances led them to focus their whole thoughts
upon the latter ; and it became almost the life-
work of Jesus to reveal to them the sublime grandeur
and the historical reality of the former.

It will, perhaps, always remain a subject of
debate at what point in the life of our Lord the
consciousness came to Him that He was really and
truly the Messiah. But whatever theory we may
entertain, there is one thing which must have come
early within the sphere of His consciousness whom
He was not, and never could be, the Messiah that
the Jews of His day expected. It must have been
soon perhaps while He was yet in the workshop
at Nazareth that He became familiar with the
common ideas cherished by His countrymen on
this important matter ; and no doubt some of the
force of the "temptation" in the wilderness lay
in this very direction, viz. that He must, if He were
the " Son of God," " the anointed above measure,"
proceed now to tear up by the roots many of the
beliefs and theories that had been held by His
people for several centuries ; that in some respects
He was even about to contradict the glorious
visions of the past, and blight the hopes of many
in Israel as to the future.

Jesus early recognised the absolute necessity of

212

MESSIANIC IDEALS

revealing a new Messianic ideal both by life and
doctrine ; and so far as St. Mark's Gospel is con-
cerned, we may say by life rather than by doctrine.
Prof. Curtis, in History of Creeds and Confessions of
Faith, says : " In all the Gospels, conviction that
Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the veritable
Son of God, is represented not only as His own
fixed possession and the basis of His ministry in all
its many-sidedness, and as strengthened by the
repeated Voice from Heaven. . . . The narratives
further make it plain that it was a definite part of
His purpose to elicit in time spontaneous acknow-
ledgment of faith in His Messiahship spiritually
understood in relation both to God and humanity "
(p. 5). The Gospels show Jesus engaged in this
work of awakening faith in Himself, as well as
uprooting those misunderstandings that had been so
long entertained ; and in revealing to the disciples
and to the world generally a fresh and truer con-
ception of the Messiah. And strangely enough, this
conception is found in those very passages of
Scripture and prophetic pictures of sorrow, sacrifice,
and suffering which the people had so completely
ignored. At first, He allowed His own personality
to exercise its own influence. There is no doubt
that, as Prof. Curtis again remarks, " Faith in Jesus
Christ personally would naturally precede faith in
His Messiahship" (p. 5). Yet we know how free
His methods were from all sensationalism, and
from those tricks by which men sometimes endeavour
to create an atmosphere for themselves. His
primary duty, as we have seen, He regarded as preach-
ing the Gospel. When we remember the task He
had before Him we shall be able to form a better

213

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

estimate of the extreme importance of this work,
and to appreciate the splendid opportunities for
His purpose it presented. How He uses such
opportunities and endeavours to bring the true
idea of Messiah before the people is illustrated in
Luke 4 16ff - It is significant that Jesus comments on
Isa. 6 1 and not on the glowing, gorgeous picture
of the chapter before, although both no doubt
would be part of the lesson of the day. He desired,
too, in His preaching to remove the errors that
were abundant at the time and to fill the minds
of the people with the living truth. He was always
emphasising the need for repentance, righteousness,
and of the importance of spiritual things. His life
was an unfailing example of His doctrine. In all
this He was bringing forth His Messianic ideal
as a living reality in actual experience. But the
" Anointed of God " was to possess wonderful
power. So He revealed power, yet in such a way
that this power was exercised in ministering to the
needs of those who were distressed and sinful. The
value of His life in manifesting to the disciples a
new standard of human possibilities can hardly be
over-estimated. Yet this was but another way of
making known the Christ to them. Jesus began to
show His thoughts of Himself as the true Messiah,
by revealing Himself as the true man One in
which the Divine image is again reflected in all
its brightness and perfection. It is this revelation
which soon takes a hold upon the reader of the
Earliest Gospel. The manhood of Jesus is so
strange and wonderful, so dignified and perfect,
that we often fail to discover the line dividing the
human and Divine in Him, if there was any such line.

214

MESSIANIC IDEALS

What He thought the Messiah was to be was what

He Himself became. His life is His interpretation

of the Old Testament prophecies concerning God's

anointed. The multitudes were deeply impressed,

and even influenced by His words, but men to-day

are perhaps even more affected by His deeds ; and

by these we do not mean His miracles, but rather

the holy life that He lived. His manner of living

must soon have arrested the attention of the disciples

as they watched Him day by day, studied Him in

the varied scenes of His earthly activity, witnessed

His complete devotion to God's will and absolute

surrender of Himself to His mission ; frequently

their minds must have been excited to wonderment

regarding Him. His compassion for those in

distress ; His sorrow, yet mercy for those in sin ;

His passion for righteousness; His thoughtfulness

for others ; His antagonism towards all forms of

evil and wickedness ; and always His great love for

His fellow-men, must have deeply influenced the

simple-minded Galilean peasantry among whom He

carried on His most active services. This is how

He conceived Messiah should act, and so it came

to pass people were heard to say, "When Christ

cometh, will he do more miracles than these which

this (man) hath done ? " (John 7 31 ). Even if we put

the miracles which He did aside for the moment,

Jesus interpreted life so differently from other men

in His own manner of living, as to awaken the

interest and curiosity of the disciples. As they

observed His perfect morality, His marked humility,

His abounding compassion, His meek submission

to the Father's will, His intense spirituality, they

must have been, surprised to discover these sterling

215

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

and beautiful virtues so extraordinarily displayed by
the Carpenter from Nazareth. Very likely they
soon ceased to think of His associations with that
city and trade. Thus by His own example He lifted
their minds out of the old ruts, and helped them to
appreciate the higher moral and spiritual values.
The keynote of His life will be found in His own
words, " Man shall not live by bread alone "
(Matt. 4 4 ). In the earlier days of His public
ministry He does not seem to have concerned
Himself or His followers either with the political
or national history of the Jews, and any reference
that takes place to these later is rather of a religious
character. He is most careful to keep His own
work free from all political colour and influence.
His life and mission, as they are presented in the
earlier sections of St. Mark's Gospel, show us a
simple and sincere Man of great faith, piety and
prayer, actively engaged in alleviating the distress
of those who were suffering, and striving to uplift
and encourage those who had fallen. Yet they
also reveal a Teacher of the purest ethics and of
the very highest religious aspirations.

Jesus, therefore, indicates the views He held
respecting the Messiah by His own interpretation
of life. The picture He gives us of the Christ is
practical and very real. We might put this another
way by saying that He took up those passages of
Scripture of the plaintive, mournful type, con-
cerning the Christ, which the Jews had neglected,
and showed that these really mirrored forth very
distinctly the true Messiah. At first He was too
sagacious a teacher to emphasise the difference be-
tween His conception of that Person and that which

216

MESSIANIC IDEALS

was entertained by the Jews. He was content to be
an illustration in real life of those prophecies which
had been ignored by them. The time came when He
went a step further, and revealed to His followers
His readiness to accept all that the prophets had
spoken concerning Christ, and to show that there
was nothing inharmonious in these utterances. Up
to Caesarea Philippi Jesus appears to have been
satisfied to allow His life to show forth the truth
about the Messiah; nor did He seem in haste to
offer any instruction to His disciples concerning
those errors and misapprehensions that He knew
were generally entertained. His own example was
the leaven which was to work at first, quietly and
effectively. After Simon's confession, however, the
positive note is undoubtedly sounded both clearly
and distinctly. It is only after that event also that
He plainly and unmistakably reveals His conception
of Messiah, and shows that, rightly understood,
there is no inconsistency between His view and
that which the prophets portray; nor any such
dissimilarity as one would expect from the cherished
ideals entertained by the Jews. He, too, seeks a
Kingdom one which is everlasting. He, likewise,
desires a renewed and glorified Israel. He seeks for
freedom, conquest and glory ; to establish a
dominion which shall extend over all the world.
He labours and strives for something far greater
than anything they had dreamed of in their most
sanguine moments. Upon the banner that He
raises now before the gaze of His amazed and
astonished followers, there is engraven this strange
device wrought in letters red as blood : " Victory
through suffering." This is the final thought which

217

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Jesus imparts of His conception of the Messiah.
But we have been anticipating, as the last few
sentences more properly belong to the next section.
We have now in a general way surveyed the ground
covered by Mark I to 8 27 . Great events in the life
and ministry of our Lord have passed before us ; the
thoughts of temptation have fallen 'away into the
background, for every incident has but brought forth
fresh testimony of His power, and, therefore, given
fresh reason for belief that Jesus is the Christ. In a
sense all this has been preparatory to that which is
yet to come when the full claims of our Lord are
to be presented to His followers without any
ambiguity. Meanwhile, the enlightenment of their
minds has proceeded but slowly. He has shown
great patience and long-suffering, and has been
sorely tried by disappointments and discouragements,
yet faith and hope have not failed. The seed sown
in tears and sadness has not all been unfruitful ;
some of it has fallen upon good soil, and the harvest
is about to be reaped, the first-fruits being garnered
in at Caesarea Philippi.

218

CHAPTER IX

" THOU ART THE CHRIST "

HOWEVER patient our Lord might be in His teaching
of the disciples, yet the days were passing, and soon
there were indications such as the opposition of the
scribes and Pharisees, who appear on the scene, as
early as Mark 2 that the time of preparation could
not be prolonged indefinitely. The leavening in-
fluence of His own life, moreover, as well as the
effect produced by His miraculous work and by
His preaching, must have produced eventually the
desired effect. We may certainly assume there was
private instruction given to the disciples which has
not been preserved, and it seems quite probable
that some of this would be designed, very especially,
in furtherance of this preparatory work. It is not at
all unlikely, judging from the account in Mark 8 and
the parallel passage in Matthew 16, that the con-
tinued and determined opposition of the Pharisees
had the effect of precipitating the course of events
at this period. St. Mark informs us that the
Pharisees were now joined by the Sadducees in their
antagonism, and this unnatural combination would
indicate that a crisis was approaching. However
that may be, it would appear Jesus now desired to
see what progress had been made in His work, both

219

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

among the people and in the case of the disciples
also. It is but reasonable to suppose that the nature
of the question which He now puts to them is a clear
indication of at least part of the purpose He has had
before Him in His public ministry thus far, which
we have already seen was the impartation of a new
and correct idea of the Messiah. There are various
small differences of detail in the Synoptics in their
narratives of the confession of Simon, but there is
agreement upon the essential facts. It is well that
both these points should be noted, for they are an
assurance on this most important incident that,
while Salmon may be right in believing the main
particulars of the three records were derived from
Q, yet each writer felt justified in adding such
further facts as were within his reach. We see the
beautiful appropriateness of St. Luke placing the
scene in the atmosphere of prayer ; and it is quite in
keeping with the belief that St. Matthew designed
his Gospel mainly for Jews, that we find him more
lavish in his use of Messianic titles on this great
occasion than the other two Synoptists. But there
is no doubt the story as told so simply by St. Mark
is exceedingly impressive, and appears very natural
in the circumstances. We find the Petrine flavour
here in the emphatic, yet brief, although very
significant declaration, " Thou art the Christ."
That is exactly what the Apostle would have been
likely to say. It is the outcome of the personal
influence, teaching, and labour of Jesus ; these have
in a manner forced the confession out of the very
soul of Peter. The work of Jesus in tearing down,
and building up afresh, has been thoroughly done,
and it is drawing near its completion so far as the

220

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

Messianic revelation to the disciples is concerned.
Their eyes have been opened, and they have begun
to realise the truth, yet not in all its fulness and
terrible significance. Dealing as we wish to do with
Mark's report of this notable incident, we are brought
face to face with the first plain and unmistakable
recognition of Jesus as Messiah. We know Swete in
his commentary on 8 29 says : " This was not the first
occasion on which the Messiahship of the Lord had
been confessed by the twelve. Peter in particular
had known who He was from the first (John I 41 ). "
The proof offered hardly seems to support the
statement, for it would appear that it was Andrew
who asserted, " We have found the Messiah." In
any case, in John I 41 the author appears to introduce
matter which, according to the Synoptists, properly
belongs to a later period. It is hardly likely a
confession of Jesus as Messiah would precede His
public activity. There appears no sufficient reason
for altering the statement we have already expressed,
that Simon's confession was the first public recogni-
tion of Jesus as Messiah on the part of the disciples,
and Peter was undoubtedly gathering up the
thoughts of his companions and putting them in a
sentence when he said, " Thou art the Christ."
Simpler words could not be employed to express
such a profound truth. Bruce, in 'The Training of
the Twelve, maintains : " Simon's confession, fairly
interpreted, seems to contain these two propositions
that Jesus was Messiah and that He was Divine "
(p. 167). Yes, that may be so, if we are dealing with
the full records of all the Synoptists on the point, as
he was doing ; but if we are confined to St. Mark's, and
its very simplicity attracts us and inclines us to think

221

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

it is the original record of the incident, then there
is only one categorical affirmation in this earliest
confession, viz. that Jesus is the Messiah. This was
what our Lord desired, what He had been working
for. Bruce says further : " That the famous con-
fession uttered in the neighbourhood of Csesarea
Philippi really contains in germ the doctrine of
Christ's divinity, might be inferred from the simple
fact that Jesus was satisfied with it, for He certainly
claimed to be the Son of God in a sense predicable
of no mere man. But when we consider the peculiar
terms in which He expressed Himself respecting
Peter's faith, we are still further confirmed in this
conclusion." He is no doubt quite right, but
somehow one wants to get back to the plain and
simple situation as revealed in St. Mark's Gospel,
which, we are to remember, is the earliest. We are
not satisfied that the thought of the divinity of our
Lord was before the mind of St. Peter or of the other
disciples on this occasion, and we question very
much whether it was before the mind of Jesus either.
In the Synoptics He is not ready to thrust such
claims forward, and it is significant that He
demanded nothing here. He asks two questions
concerning Himself: the first, what the outside
world thought of Him; the other, what His close
companions believed regarding Him. The first
answer is unsatisfactory; the second peculiarly
gratifying. What is involved in this answer, what
may be legitimately inferred from it, is what was
involved in the acceptance of Him as Messiah not
alone as that Person was understood by the Jews, but
as He was being revealed to the disciples by our
Lord, and as He was still further to be made known

222

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

in the days to come. We have every reason to
be satisfied with that, for we see it certainly satisfied
Jesus. We would suggest that St. Matthew's
addition, "the Son of the living God" (i6 16 ), is an
attempt to amplify the contents of the word
" Messiah " as then understood by the Jews, and is a
confirmation of what we have stated above, that they
believed the Christ would be of Divine origin.

This declaration of Simon's has been regarded as
one of the great landmarks, not only in the ministry
of Jesus, but, perhaps we may venture to say, in the
progress of spiritual religion also. It cannot be
otherwise when we realise that these four words,
" Thou art the Christ," signify the fulfilment of the
dreams, hopes, and promises entertained, shall we say,
for about two thousand years. Some will trace the
beginning of these promises right back to Eden, when
it was declared the seed of the woman should bruise
the head of the serpent. Certainly, generation
after generation, century after century, looked for-
ward with expectancy to the coming of the Lord's
anointed. As we have seen, it was the inspiring
theme of the poets of the past, and prophets had
looked down the corridors of time, and in the far
distance beheld Immanuel born of a virgin reigning
over the everlasting Kingdom of righteousness. And
when their prophecies were fulfilled, truly it was
" without observation." In the gathering of the
twilight, after the evening prayer was ended
(Luke 9 18 ) and the toils of a busy day were over,
when the storm-clouds of opposition were lowering
on the horizon, and when it was realised that the time
for instruction was now becoming very limited, in
hope and fear if that expression may be allowed

223

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Jesus put the momentous question which received
the equally important answer that was to imply
the confirmation of God's gracious mercy and good-
ness throughout the ages past and to come. The
hour had at length struck for which men had waited
so long, back to which so many have turned their
eyes since, and towards which we believe the
generations to come will turn with undiminished
interest and reverence in their gaze. This is the
first Christian confession of faith, brief though it
is, and that in itself would be reason enough for
treating it with profound respect. But if we may
be pardoned for quoting Bruce again, he surely
but states the truth when he affirms that Jesus
" Assigned to the doctrine confessed by that
disciple (Peter) the place of fundamental importance
in the Christian faith " (p.- 169). It cannot be
denied that it rightly occupies that place. The
faith which Jesus desired to awaken in His first
disciples was faith in Himself as Messiah as the
revelation of the Father's love. It is that faith
which He still desires to quicken into life in those
who would yet be His disciples. Faith in the
Person and office of Jesus Christ is still fundamental,
and is only revealed by the Spirit of God.

Perhaps it would be convenient here to inquire
whether there was not some subjective consideration
that led Jesus to put this question to the disciples.
It is not impossible that the circumstances of His
public ministry were testing His own faith a good
deal about this juncture. He had spent a consider-
able time in this work now, and, while outward
results were not wanting, He knew very well that the
general progress He had striven for had not yet been

224

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

obtained. He was aware also that the time for such
labour was becoming very short, and even He
found it extremely difficult to awaken the spiritual
instincts of the people. They were willing to
receive His favours, but not to accept His Spirit.
Thus it is possible there may have arisen a crisis in
the mind of Jesus. Reviewing His past work and
its results, if these did not appear so satisfactory as.
He desired, He may have begun to question within
Himself whether He had taken the right methods
for the purpose He had in hand ; whether, for
instance, He had not somewhat obscured the
Messianic teaching by want of positive utterances.
And if He took a very gloomy view of the situation,
He might even have asked Himself whether He had
not been self-deceived in imagining Himself to be
the Christ ; so that this period may have furnished
a very real crisis in the life's experience of Jesus.
The want of abiding fruit may likewise have led Him
to review the work and methods of the sower or
the worth of the seed, and have even brought Him
to a time of hesitation and doubt. There was one
way to allay all anxieties, and to confirm Him in
the course He had set before Him, or to alter this,
if circumstances should so suggest. He would
ascertain whether the effect He had really striven
for had been actually secured, and when He received
the answer of Simon, " Thou art the Christ," He
found this as the breaking forth of the sun through
the clouds of a threatening day. This would, to some
extent, explain the very evident satisfaction which
Simon's confession afforded to Him. His methods
were justified, and confirmation was given to His own
thoughts and ideas in everyway. The fruitwas not so

225 15

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

abundant as He expected ; it was, however, there, and
He was satisfied that in due time it would increase.
Twilight is of short duration in the clear atmo-
sphere of the East, and darkness speedily follows
upon the setting of the sun. Something similar to
that now takes place in the story of the enlightenment
of the disciples, for no sooner does the golden light
of revelation break in upon Simon and his friends,
than that light is extinguished and the darkness
becomes palpable as before : " And he charged them
that they should tell no man of him " (Mark 8 30 ).
They had come to the realisation of an inspiring
truth, which they would gladly have shared with
their neighbours, and which indeed seemed to convey
the duty of passing it on to others ; but no, a ban
of silence is laid upon them. For the present this
important fact must be kept secret. We may only
speculate as to the reason ; and perhaps it can be
put in a sentence the disciples were ready for the
revelation of this truth of His Messiahship, but the
world was not yet fully prepared. What did the
world think of Him ? " John the Baptist, but some
say Elias ; and others, One of the prophets." It is
remarkable to discover here there is not a single hint
that the outside world thought He was the Messiah.
He was a great man, a noted religious leader
nothing more. John the Baptist had been an
outstanding personality, and there were striking
similarities, as we have seen, between the teaching
of Jesus and that of the Baptist. Therefore, some
of the people, and among the number apparently
Herod, thought Jesus was John marvellously raised
from the dead ; indeed, some of them may not have
known about the Baptist's death, and so perhaps

226

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

confounded these two great teachers. There appears
to have been a tradition of which the disciples were
aware (Mark 9 11 ), that Elijah was to reappear before
the coming of Messiah ; and therefore others
imagined that Jesus was Messiah's forerunner in
the person of Elijah the idea was no doubt based
upon Mai. 4 5 ; while another class had only a
vague notion that He was " One of the prophets."
Quite clearly the work of preparation had not been
sufficiently perfected in the outside world. In such
circumstances it might only have prejudiced the
position to have proclaimed His Messiahship publicly,
and might also have so precipitated a crisis in the
opposition of His enemies as to render His work for
the future exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
The revelation was consequently not yet to be given
to the world, because it was not fit to receive it.
But there is every probability that Jesus was
influenced in His attitude at this time by the
increasing hostility of the scribes and Pharisees,
and having still much work to do, He did not desire
to jeopardise it by any precipitate action or aggressive
declaration. The standard of His Kingdom should
be raised presently, but the time was not yet come.
It was to be a cross, as He now proceeds to explain
to His followers ; and Messiah upon a cross is an idea
they cannot accept. But, then, He shows them
that suffering and death are a means to salvation
and glory, and that death really opens the gate
to life everlasting. Perhaps there may have flashed
through His mind, as suggested by this reflection,
the thought that the world might best be induced
to recognise His Messiahship through His resur-
rection from the dead.

227

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Now, although there was this specific declaration
of the Messiah by Peter, acquiesced in, no doubt,
by the other disciples, we are not able to assert posi-
tively what it exactly implied in their case. It is
not improbable that at the moment even Simon did
not perceive the full contents of his confession. Had
it been otherwise, it is quite clear he would not have
taken up the attitude of " rebuking " his Master,
which he is reported to have done. One believes
that if he had understood fully the affirmation he
had just made, he would not have fallen into that
error. His mistake certainly called forth the sharp
reproof of Jesus upon him, " Get thee behind me,
Satan." It recalls the temptation scene in the
wilderness, and possibly the connection is more real
than appears on the surface. It may be that this
very idea of suffering itself presented a temptation to
Jesus against which He had to fight most strenuously.
The scene in the Garden of Gethsemane shows how
abhorrent it was to Him ; and it is not unlikely
that, in this moment of exaltation, Satan should
endeavour to strike again, using the warm, friendly
words of Peter as his instrument. Moreover, we
ought not to forget that while He was the Son of
God and the Son of Man, He was also the Son of
Mary, and had been trained up in His earliest days
in all the faiths and beliefs of His people respecting
the Messiah. The conditions of His life at Nazareth
may have had their influence upon Him later, and
may also have provided vulnerable points for the
great adversary. As the first temptation im-
mediately succeeded the uplifting scene of the
Baptism and turned upon the words, " If thou be
the Son of God," which had been spoken to Him

228

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

from heaven, so a fresh trial of strength between
Him and His adversary might conceivably have
occurred at this point, after the inspiring confession
at Caesarea Phfiippi, turning upon the words,
" If thou be the Messiah, if thou be the Christ, why
suffer ? Why not fulfil the role prescribed by the
prophets and the poets, and conform to the expecta-
tion of the Jews ? " If the foregoing assumption
is accepted, it would explain the sharpness of the
rebuke now administered to Peter.

The results of Peter's confession were at once
noticeable ; the conditions that had existed between
Jesus and His disciples up to this time could never
hereafter be the same. The whole record of their
relations with one another, not only as revealed in
St. Mark's Gospel, but also in the others, shows that
very early they began to regard Him as a Man,
different and distinct from other men. They
never seem, for example, to have placed Him on a
level with themselves. Whatever uncertainties they
may have entertained in the past as to His Person
and there must have been times when they hardly
knew what to think henceforth He was to them the
Messiah. Nevertheless, there was much that still
required to be .done in the way of their further en-
lightenment, much to be built upon this confession as
a foundation. Something, certainly, had been accom-
plished already ; but they did not find it easy to un-
learn their lessons of earlier days. In particular, they
could not understand the necessity which demanded
Christ should suffer, nor how His Kingdom was to
be advanced by that suffering. This remained an
enigma to them right up to the very end. The resur-
rection, and Pentecost, were needed to open their eyes.

229

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

After the confession of Peter a new theme seems
to have chiefly occupied the teaching of Jesus.
Hitherto He had made the " Kingdom " the
principal topic ; perhaps in His public teaching He
does so still, but we observe that the private in-
struction of the disciples occupies a more prominent
place than formerly, and that He now wishes to
reveal with increasing distinctness the kind of
Messiah He is to be. In the earlier part of His
teaching, we might say generally, the theme is the
nature of the Kingdom ; in the later it is the Person
of the King. When we allow for the length of the
Gospel, St. Mark records a comparatively large
number of miracles, and thereby lays considerable
emphasis upon that aspect of the work of Jesus ; it
is therefore significant to find only two occur after
Csesarea Philippi, or three, if we count the cursing
of the fig-tree. The other two are the healing of
the child with dumb spirit, and restoring sight to
blind Bartimaeus. It is likewise noteworthy that
every chapter except the thirteenth, after " the
confession," has distinct references to the new aspect
of the Messiah as One who is ordained to suffering
and travail of soul. Thus does Jesus emphasise
this conception in His teaching to the disciples, and
apparently because He is so much occupied with their
instruction, His ministry now becomes less public,
and assumes a much more private character. This
change may also be attributable to the more pro-
nounced opposition that was now manifesting -itself.
It would probably be correct to say that, so far as the
development of the Christological idea is concerned,
He allowed His life to bear witness, and create its
own impression up to a certain point ; but after

230

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

that had been reached, clearly and distinctly He
dwells upon His future work as the " Suffering
Servant " of Jehovah. Hence, we find in the latter
section of the Gospel such statements as io 33ff - :
"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of
man shall be delivered unto the chief priests,
and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn
him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles.
And they shall mock him, and shall scourge
him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him :
and the third day he shall rise again." This may
be taken as a summary of the teaching of Jesus
respecting Himself as Christ at this time. The
prospect, dreadful as it appeared, does not seem to
have depressed Him, for long ago He had realised
that His way must be that of self-sacrifice. Never-
theless, the picture He painted in the words just
quoted could not have been very attractive to the
disciples. It was intolerable to imagine that the
Messiah, around whose person they, like every other
Jew, had woven such golden dreams, was to be
rejected by the leaders of the people and by the
ecclesiastical authorities. They found it almost
impossible to believe those in authority would
consign Him to death ! Nay worse, that they
would hand Him over to the Gentiles. Messiah
in the hands of the Romans ! What a blight upon
all their hopes ! What a test, too, of their loyalty
and faith I We could hardly blame them if at this
critical moment they began to wonder whether
Jesus was different from other Messiahs who had
already come and raised the standard of revolt
against the Romans unsuccessfully. But there was
always this difference, so far, Jesus had not raised

231

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

any such standard, and there was no suggestion that
He intended to do so. Nay, rather He said, " Render
to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mark I2 17 ).
What exactly He meant by saying, " And the third
day he shall rise again," they did not understand.
Indeed, so overwhelmed were they with the other
prospect of suffering and death, that for the present
their minds did not appear to lay hold of this
thought of an immediate resurrection. It is a
tribute to the sterling trust and confidence of the
disciples, as well as to their intense personal loyalty,
that their faith in these circumstances stood the test,
and that they remained attached to their Master
with unabated devotion. It appears extremely
probable that they did not fully understand all this
teaching, or else that they regarded its fulfilment as
somewhat remote, otherwise why should the sons
of Zebedee seek, in the way they did, preferment in
His Kingdom ? (io 35ff -).

But there is another advance here in the teaching
of Jesus. He really raises His standard after Caesarea
Philippi and calls the multitude to it. The Kingdom
for which He is striving is to be won, not by His
sufferings alone, but also by the sacrifices of those
who will follow Him, who are ready to espouse
His cause. " And when he had called the people
with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever
will come after me, let him deny himself, and take
up his cross, and follow me" (8 34 ). Strange
Kingdom this in which the King and all His sub-
jects must pass in triumphal procession through the
archway of suffering, hardship, adversity, and self-
sacrifice ! Yes, and when they have suffered to the
full, there may not be forthcoming the honours and

232

"THOU ART THE CHRIST"

rewards which some of them were seeking. James
and John might be baptised with His baptism,
might drink even of His cup ; but it did not follow
they would sit on His right and left hand in Glory.
It is quite clear now that Jesus begins to see the end
for Himself, which was but the beginning for His
people. Whither He leads they must follow ;
Master and disciple alike must bear the cross before
they can wear the crown. How different was the
prospect now revealed from that which they had
long entertained ! Dark clouds were gathering on
the horizon, but as yet they were somewhat in
the distance, and so the disciples were undaunted.
Jerusalem was a place to shun henceforth, for clearly
it was the centre of danger.

233

CHAPTER X

THE TRANSFIGURATION

TRAVELLERS tell us that on the way leading over the
Pyrenees from France to Spain a point is reached
which affords a magnificent view. Looking back
from the summit to which he has ascended, the
wayfarer can trace out with much distinctness the
road over which he has passed. Its rugged ascents,
its deep gorges, all lie under his eye, reminding him
of the difficulties which have been successfully over-
come in his upward journey, and assuring him that
he has now attained the crest of the ridge.
Contemplating the prospect in front, he discovers
sharp descents into the valley, which sometimes
appear even dangerous ; frowning precipices and
shadowy defiles are distinctly observable ; and
beyond these the fair and fruitful fields of Spain.
There was something similar to this in the ex-
perience of the disciples. When they had reached
the sublime Christological heights revealed in the
confession at Csesarea Philippi, they had but a
little distance farther to travel until they came to
the summit of revelation regarding the Person of
Christ. One or two valleys of disappointment had,
however, to be negotiated before this crest had
been fully attained. We believe the most complete

234

THE TRANSFIGURATION

unfolding, the absolutely superlative manifestation
of our Lord's glorious personality, was found on
the Mount of Transfiguration. The disciples' ex-
periences of Him, as we have seen, were all in an
ascending series. Their knowledge of Him had
been now wonderfully broadened and deepened.
Perhaps it would be justifiable to say that, at first,
they had followed Him partly because He appeared
to have taken up John the Baptist's work. Now
they were convinced He was the Messiah, although
they could not reconcile that belief with His state-
ments about suffering. This was as far as some
of them, in the meantime, were intended to go ; for
them the future would provide for the clearer
interpretation of the full contents of the Messianic
ideal as Jesus was now making it known to them.
Three of them, however, were to reach the very
extreme height of revelation, and share in an
incident which would ever afterwards affect their
whole view of Christ, and the effect of which they
would never forget. Peter, James, and John alone
participated in the Transfiguration scene. They had
been selected already by Jesus as His special com-
panions, or perhaps witnesses as, for example, when
He restored the daughter of Jairus and they were
designed yet again to take a part in that indescribably
pathetic scene in Gethsemane. The fact that these
men were destined to occupy leading positions in
the future church, perhaps furnishes some reason
for the choice. The effect of the experience on
the " Holy Mount " upon two of them is traceable,
we believe, in their later writings. The words in
the fourth Gospel (l 14 ) "And we beheld his
glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father "

235

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

many scholars think have a probable reference to
the Transfiguration, and this probability is much
enhanced if we take the basal idea of the word $oa
(as Prof. H. A. A. Kennedy suggests) from the Old
Testament. The shekinah at first was particularly
the manifestation of oa ; and the Transfiguration,
as it is described in the Synoptic Gospels, was surely
a shekinah. This is supported by a translation of
John i 14 into Hebrew: laDira pan itDl rrm -art
in: ia Yfaa mrm. The use of p and --pa

here is noticeably in the same association, as is
found in many places in the Old Testament. More
direct and specific is the passage in 2 Pet. I 17f> :
" For he received from God the Father honour
and glory, when there came such a voice to him
from the excellent glory, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice
which came from heaven we heard, when we were
with him in the holy mount." There can be no
doubt that if these Words were not written by
St. Peter, they were written by some person who
wished to represent himself as Peter, and the
reference in these two verses to the Transfiguration
is in such a way as would have been done by the
Apostle. However, we must not delay with that.
What we are concerned with at this point is, to
show that the experience referred to in Mark 9 1 " 8
evidently made an indelible impression upon the
memories of those who passed through it, and that
clearly they looked upon it as an actual occurrence.
The outstanding difficulty about the Trans-
figuration is to explain how it could have possibly
taken place that is to say, to account for it
on rational grounds. There are several ways of

236

THE TRANSFIGURATION

approaching that difficulty. First, we may take up
the rationalistic position which, commencing with
the hypothesis that everything must be reduced
to laws of reason and harmonised with ordinary
human experience, refuses to acknowledge anything
transcendental in Jesus or His work. Whatever,
therefore, is proposed to be such must be discarded,
and that upon any and various grounds. Some of
these grounds seem rather unworthy, as, for example,
those of Paulus and Schleiermacher, who appear to
have regarded the incident we are now considering
as a piece of play-acting, Jesus Himself being the
stage manager. There is more reverence, it may
be admitted, in the mythological theory of Strauss,
accepted apparently by Keim. We have already
dealt with it. Some hold the Transfiguration to
have been but a dream or a vision in sleep ; and
still others, that it is an allegory with the object
of showing the high opinion the disciples now had
of Jesus, and to indicate His relation to the Old
Testament. The latest view is that it is symbolic.
Menzies in The Earliest Gospel says : " The following
scene (the Transfiguration) is reported by men who
were confessedly in great agitation when they
witnessed it, and who were yet well aware that
what they saw was not reality but vision. It is to
be regarded as symbolic, and the symbolism is to be
recognised first of all in the position this narrative
occupies in the context of all three Synoptists.
It is after Jesus had made up His mind to go to
Jerusalem, and possibly to encounter a fate which
to the ordinary Jewish mind would entirely destroy
His claim to be the Messiah or in any way a chosen
instrument of deity ; it is at this moment that He

237

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

puts on to the eyes of His most intimate friends
heavenly radiance, and appears as one whose true
nature is not to be judged by his human mien or
his outward fortunes. It is then that his figure
becomes framed to his friends' eyes in the same
picture with the principal figures of the sacred
history of Israel : that of the great Lawgiver and
that of the great Prophet." It seemed better to
transcribe the whole paragraph because of its im-
portance and suggestiveness, as well as on account
of the fact that it no doubt reflects the latest view.
We have no desire to be hypercritical, but there are
one or two small points of fact which require to be
referred to first of all. Menzies says the " scene is
reported by men who were confessedly in great
agitation when they witnessed it." Does that quite
accurately describe the situation ? He is dealing
with the report in " the Earliest Gospel " (St. Mark's),
and the only ground for his statement is 9 6 , " For
he wist not what to say ; for they were sore afraid."
If they were afraid, something very unusual was
causing that fear ; their terror is striking evidence
that they were fully alive to all that was taking
place. There is absolutely no suggestion of fear,
or agitation, or anything of the kind, until the
experience through which they were passing caused
it. One would like to know whether Prof. Menzies
would have denied any objective reality to the
Transfiguration, or if he considered it was only
a subjective experience ? Reading over his own
translation of the passage (Mark 9 2 " 8 ), we fail to find
any evidence in support of his statement that the
men who reported the scene " were yet well aware
that what they saw was not reality but vision."

238

THE TRANSFIGURATION

That appears to be contradicted by the words of
Peter, " And at this Peter says to Jesus, it is a good
thing that we are here ; let us make three tents,
one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah "
(Menzies 5 translation). This suggestion to erect
tents was so practical as to indicate that the scene
was very real. The subsequent references by John
and Peter mentioned above convey the same
impression. Then, we would also wish to know
what exactly is implied in the words, " it is at this
moment that he puts on to the eyes of his most
intimate friends heavenly radiance." Does this
mean anything, if it does not indicate a real change
in the outward appearance of Jesus ? If, however,
it only suggests that their inward vision was so
brightened as to enable them to behold the heavenly
character of the choice Jesus had made in becoming
the suffering Messiah, then it certainly appears
strange that three separate individuals were affected
in their minds in precisely the same way. It was
a rare coincidence that presented to their inner
consciousness the same picture, and which produced
exactly the same effect upon them all. Not often
in actual experience do we meet with an instance
of three sleeping men dreaming exactly the same
dream, or seeing any absolutely identical vision.
This, like the other explanations, hardly seems
to clear away the difficulties, but rather creates
others equally hard to solve. The same objection
to a symbolical interpretation of this incident *
holds here as has already been urged in the case
of the withered fig-tree it is not in St. Mark's
style. Up to this point the story he has been
telling is lifelike, vivid, real. Examples of the

239

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

activities and powers of Jesus pass swiftly before us,
and we are not prepared for this sudden introduction
of symbolism, and feel reluctant to accept it as an
explanation of the Transfiguration unless greater
reasons are offered for doing so.

Let us suppose the three documents, Mark 9 a ~ 8 ,
Matt. I7 3 " 8 , and Luke o, 28 - 36 , were laid before us
for examination and investigation as to their re-
liability. The very first thing we ought to do is
to free our minds from all prepossessions and bias
abandon all preconceived theories, and as carefully
and critically as possible examine the evidence in
support of this supposed transfiguration, and thereby
ascertain whether it is to be depended upon. Now
we have in this case probably three sources that
agree in the main facts of the story. Salmon says :
" I am disposed to conjecture that we have in
Matthew the form in which it had been told in Q,
and that St. Mark has retained some of the vividness
of expression in which Peter related the event.
The close relation between St. Matthew's account
and St. Mark's is manifest ; but it is to be noted
that St. Mark speaks of a voice from the cloud,
without having previously told of any cloud. It
seems to me that this is best explained by the
supposition that St. Mark is copying not St. Matthew,
but the authority whence St. Matthew drew.
St. Luke's account is so much fuller that I do not
set it on line with the other two." Does not
Dr. Salmon fall into a slight slip here in stating
that Mark " speaks of a voice from the cloud, with-
out having previously told of any cloud " ? The
seventh verse reads : " And there came a cloud
overshadowing them, and there came a voice out

240

THE TRANSFIGURATION

of the cloud " identical, so far as reference to the
cloud is concerned, with Matt. I7 5 , and thus
making the similarity between Matthew's and
Mark's report even greater than Salmon recognises.
Now, if Matthew's account represents Q, Mark's will
represent that plus Peter's recollections (i.e. accept-
ing Salmon's position), and Luke's Q plus some
material obtained from an independent source.
We have thus the report from the original source,
whether that is Q or Mark, supplemented Toy
independent matter from two other sources. We
must add to this the references in John I 14 and
2 Pet. i 17 , and this seems ample testimony to
support the reliability of the story. There are few
facts in the New Testament better attested than
this. It is too much, in the circumstances, to expect
us to believe that the story was all due to a vivid
imagination, or to the mythological tendency that
is supposed to have been so active towards the
close of the first or beginning of the second century.
We cannot very well evade the conclusion to which
the evidence before us points, viz. that there must
have been some historical basis for the incident ;
and as investigators we cannot do otherwise than
accept it, unless we can disprove this evidence. No
doubt we cannot explain how the thing was possible ;
no doubt also we cannot explain every detail of
many other things which happen every day. We are
not aware that anyone can exactly explain what life
is, but we shall not, therefore, deny that it is a
reality. It is quite possible that the average person
could not perhaps expound in detail how a wireless
message is carried to the other side of the world,
but the proof is too overpowering to permit us to

241 16

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

deny the fact. So it appears to be here. The
truth is, this occurrence seems to have been
phenomenal, and no explanation, possibly, will
harmonise it with our familiar laws of reason. To
the man who refuses to believe in the transcendental
there is a formidable difficulty here, for the con-
firmation is unquestionably strong, and if he be
honest he must recognise that ; simply to reject it,
to explain it away, or to minimise it is hardly fair
criticism. To the man of faith the difficulty is
perchance somewhat less, for in the last resort he
feels he must accept the evidence, even though
he is unable to account for the occurrence itself.
Rank materialism will not hesitate to deny that
there is anything supernatural, to use a familiar
word, and consequently it must reject a great
deal in both the Old and New Testaments. It is
an easy way to get rid of a difficulty; but after all,
is it really a reasonable method ? There is another
point we must bear in mind this instance of Divine
glory being manifested on the Mount of Trans-
figuration is paralleled by the experience of Saul of
Tarsus at his conversion near Damascus ; and this
experience was so real to him that it completely
changed the whole current of his life. We have
no alternative, therefore, but to accept the trust-
worthiness of the story on the evidence produced,
even though to our great regret we cannot explain it.
Some light might be thrown upon it, however,
if we had all the details of the experiences and
incidents that took place in the six or eight days
separating the Transfiguration from Peter's Con-
fession. It was then that Jesus began in plain
terms to inform the disciples of the suffering which

242

THE TRANSFIGURATION

awaited Him at Jerusalem. This, as we have seen,
was bound to have a depressing effect upon them all.
Then, too, Peter had been sharply rebuked, and
James and John informed that He could not grant
the preference which they sought in His Kingdom.
We may well believe that the necessity for thus
treating these favourite followers, who were presently
to be charged with great ecclesiastical responsibilities,
was a grief to Jesus. Keen disappointment must
have been felt all round, for clearly this was the
"black week" in their experience, and perhaps
we cannot adequately appreciate the strain under
which they were all living but surely in particular
Jesus and the three disciples, Peter, James, and John.
We believe, then, that the Transfiguration was
somehow intended to help these three especially.
We may well conclude that their faith was being
tested to the breaking-point, and so the vision was
granted, that they should not be tried above that
which they were able to bear. Perhaps St. Luke is
right in placing the occurrence after a period of
prayer engaged in by our Lord. He certainly had
much to harass and perplex Him at this period.
In addition to those things just now referred to,
we may be sure that He was conscious of the dis-
appointment He was creating in not being able to
take up the Messianic r61e expected by the Jews,
and the disciples along with them. He was grieved
by their want of spirituality, disappointed with their
contentment with earthly things instead of the
heavenly He offered. The open hostility of His
countrymen, who should have accepted Him as
their Saviour, and the imminent and humiliating
end of all His earthly labours at Jerusalem, must

243

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

have greatly affected Him at this time. Everything
was out of joint, and He found now, as He had
discovered often before, that prayer was His best
refuge and strength in the time of trouble. This
experience was to the four particularly concerned
what the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is to the
modern Christian a communion season bringing
comfort for the present, and strength and hopefulness
for the future. Shepherds beheld the indescribably
celestial glory shining in the heavens on the night
when Jesus was born as a babe full thirty years
before, and now when His earthly life is drawing
to a close, fishermen are amazed and wonder-struck
by the vision of glory they behold on the Mount
of Transfiguration. Need we doubt that there was
something real in this occurrence ? Since God was
in Christ Jesus, why might not heaven and earth
meet, if only for a short spell, and Jesus take upon
Him the glory which He had from before the
foundation of the world ? (John I7 5 ). And for
Him, once more, there is a voice of approval, no
doubt to suit the condition of His mind and soul
at this time, in almost the same words as at the
baptism. He had chosen the hard and difficult
way of making the Messiah known ; it entailed an
agony we do not mean merely physical such as
we cannot understand ; and so the voice from
heaven declared once again, " This is my beloved
Son," bringing confirmation of what lay behind
and inspiring fortitude for the darker days to come.
The suggestive and endearing reference in the use
of the words " beloved Son " would be particularly
comforting to the heart of Jesus, and raise up many
tender and sweet memories. We may conclude

244

THE TRANSFIGURATION

from the reference in Luke 9 31 that Moses and
Elijah appear for precisely the same purpose of
strengthening and preparing Him for the ordeal of
Calvary that now approaches, although the subject
of conversation is not mentioned in either Matthew
or Mark. The appearance of these two Old
Testament worthies is as difficult for us to explain
as is the Transfiguration itself. We can only fall
back on the suggestion again, that the whole thing
had for its object the alleviation of the critical
conditions then existing, and the preparation for
the more awful days to come.

Once more the command of silence is laid upon
His three companions, and, as before, the injunction
seems inexplicable. We think it would have been
most helpful if Peter, James, and John had been
allowed to tell what happened, to the other disciples.
But not a word is to be said about it " till the Son
of Man were risen from the dead." We can only
hint as an explanation of this silence, that possibly
Jesus saw the experience would not have been
understood until alter the eyes of the disciples had
been opened by the fact of His resurrection. It is
vain to inquire further when there is no clue given ;
we might conjecture and be very far wrong. The
setting of this incident is in an atmosphere of
reverence and sanctity, which, we think, only finds
its parallel in the scene laid in the Garden of
Gethsemane.

The Transfiguration seems the highest point in
the Christian revelation respecting Jesus, for in
some respects it appears to anticipate even the
resurrection and the glory of the ascension. No
more impressive experience could come to Peter,

245

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

James, and John until heavenly glory should be
fully unveiled, and they should see " face to face "
the " King in His beauty." From this point
onward they are descending into the valley. Suffer-
ing, humiliation, and degradation are words now
often on the lips of Jesus He is to be despised and
rejected both by the elders and the people. And
so the clouds gather, as they often do, almost on
the mountain-top itself. In our Gospel from this
point onward, much more clearly and distinctly
Jesus now applies to Himself the statements of
Isaiah concerning the Suffering Servant of Jehovah.
This becomes the dominant and persistent note of
the last section of His ministry and the last half
of the Gospel. It raises problems in the minds of
the disciples which baffle them, and just because
there appear to them now such violent and irre-
solvable discords in this combination of Messiah
and suffering, their thoughts are only the more
occupied with it. Again and again Jesus returns
to it, as if it had an irresistible fascination even for
Himself. Often He is disappointed and perplexed
by their slowness of understanding. Still, although
the Gospel is pitched now in a minor key, there is
a plaintive sweetness and soothing peacefulness that
indicate a spirit of calm resignation on the part
of our Lord. Manifestly He has faced the idea of
suffering and conquered it. His last fight certainly
has not been fought, but He has fearlessly looked
upon His enemy, and has not weakened the very
least in His resolution. He descends without fear
into the valley, for beyond it He has seen victory,
and the entrancing glory of the fields celestial.

246

CHAPTER XI

JESUS AS A REFORMER

PERHAPS this will be a convenient place to pause in
the development of our main subject so that we
may consider, in a general way, the attitude which
Jesus maintained to the common affairs of life as
He found them existing at the time of His entrance
upon public work. There is no doubt that the
ministry of John the Baptist was really a great
moral and religious movement, and the interest Jesus
took in it shows that He quite understood that, and
was concerned about such work. John, however,
does not appear to have come into conflict with the
Jewish rulers, while Jesus did ; there must have been,
consequently, something in the teaching of the
latter which was more objectionable to them than
in that of the former. We have already seen that
His Messianic views did not at all coincide with
theirs ; but that difference was more accentuated at
the close of His ministry, and was not the cause of the
opposition against Him at first. We know that as
early as the second chapter of Mark, the scribes
objected to the claim that our Lord had power to
forgive sins, and that from this point onward they
are generally represented as being hostile to Him.
We must, therefore, endeavour to ascertain whether

247

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

there were any other features of His work particu-
larly objectionable to the religious leaders of that
time, and very briefly consider Jesus in the aspect
of a Reformer carrying on a movement of very
great importance, and sometimes of very considerable
extensiveriess. This will embrace a brief inquiry
into His attitude to the existing order of things
(i) in regard to religion, (2) ethics, (3) social
economics, and (4) politics.

i. The attitude of Jesus to the Jewish religion.

It is extremely interesting as well as of much
importance to remember that Jesus never took up
any hostile position towards the old religion in
which He had been brought up. We find Him,
wherever He went, and as long as He was permitted
to do so, attending the synagogue services and
taking a part in them. He appears to have been
present at some of the more important feasts of
the Jews in Jerusalem, and it seems likely was a
worshipper at the temple. There are several
references to His being in the House of God and
teaching there in the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth,
and fourteenth chapters of St. Mark's Gospel. We
observe that these are all placed during the last
week of His public ministry, but we have no reason to
suppose that He was not present on other occasions and
at other feasts ; indeed, we discover quite a number of
passages in the fourth Gospel in support of that idea.
There is nothing in St. Mark's Gospel to suggest
that Jesus had the least antipathy towards the Jewish
religion as such. Instead of that, He appears to
have taken part in its services whenever possible.

There is, however, one incident recorded in
Mark n 1 ^- which might lead us to suppose He did

248

JESUS AS A REFORMER

not accept the prevailing system or order in regard
to the existing temple worship. This is the record
of the cleansing of the temple, which probably
occurred during the last week at Jerusalem. The
story as told by St. Mark is rich in details. Jesus,
after having publicly entered into the Holy City as
Messiah riding upon a young ass passed onward
to the temple, whither the crowds seem to have
followed Him (Matt. 2i 15 ). St. Mark states He
"looked round about upon all things" (n 11 ), and
then departed back to Bethany because the "even
was come." He appears to have formed the
resolution to visit the temple again next day, and
purge it of the unholy traffic which He saw being
carried on therein. But nothing that He did on the
second day when " He cast out them that bought
and sold in the temple, and overthrew the tables
of the money-changers " could suggest the least
disrespect for the sacred house or its worship. One
of the accusations made against Him at His trial
was that He had spoken evil against the temple
(Mark I4 58 ) ; but that was clearly a misunderstanding.
Jesus, in cleansing the temple, showed that He was
zealous for purity of worship there, and desired that
nothing inconsistent therewith should be done in
the Holy House : all which goes to support the idea
that He not only accepted the old institutions, but
was much attached to them. He was an ardent
Reformer up to the point of wishing to have those
things that were inharmonious with the religious and
spiritual character of the temple service entirely re-
moved ; but in endeavouring to do that He was only
restoring the House of God to its original purpose.
In thus acknowledging the temple and its services,

249

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

He was also acknowledging the ritual, at least to
some extent, that was engaged in so elaborately
there. What part He took in this is not definitely
known. We cannot be sure whether He ever
presented an offering or sacrifice, Himself. The
inference from the observance of the Passover feast
would lead us to suppose that, when in Jerusalem,
He conformed to the usual customs of the temple.
It is extremely probable that if He had in any way
refused to observe the laws and traditions of the
Jewish religion, such refusal would have provided
an item in His indictment before the Council, as
well as, perhaps, in His trial before Pilate. The
absence of any hint of want of conformity leaves it
open to us to infer that He was careful to acquiesce
in the principal ceremonies and rules in operation
at the time. It was really only what He regarded
as the abuses of the system that Jesus spoke against.
Positively, in Mark I 44 we find Him recommending
the leper, whom He had just cleansed, carefully to
observe the ritual prescribed in such a case. This
is the only instance of the kind. Stevens says : " It is
certain that Jesus laid no stress upon sacrificial rites,
else he could not have been so silent on the subject "
(The Teaching of Jesus, p. 52). But Jesus did not
require to lay any stress upon these. We know they
were abundantly observed at the time, in a formal and
heartless way. We also are aware that these rites
were designed to pass away immediately. Did
Jesus oppose them ? The answer appears to be, no. '
Did He try to impart a new spirit, new life, to them ?
We should be disposed to say, yes. In support of
that, we would urge that the eating of the Passover
Lamb, for example, was not the mere formality

250

JESUS AS A REFORMER

in the case of Jesus which it was in the case of many
Jews even of good standing at that time. The
moral and spiritual significance underlying many of
these ceremonies was discerned, understood, and
sympathised in by Him; He found the essence of
the act in these qualities, while to the average
worshipper of the period virtue was discovered in a
scrupulous observance of the details of ritual. But
because of this deeper insight, Jesus had a more
elastic view of the operation of the law of ritual.
He found true observance to be in the spirit
instead of the letter. This, inevitably, brought
Him into conflict with the Jews of the Zealot type,
but it shows Jesus maintained a respectful attitude
towards the great Mosaic economy. Although we
may desire very much to know the mind of our
Lord respecting the sacrificial ritual of His time,
and especially as to its perpetuation or abandonment
in the near future, there is practically no information
in St. Mark's Gospel to satisfy our craving. The
word " sacrifice " is only found twice in the Gospel
that is according to the A.V. and only once if we
follow the R.V. ; the latter omits the clause, " and
every sacrifice shall be salted with salt" (9 49 ), in
accordance with some of the very important MSS.,
but gives a note of that reading in the margin. It
is of no importance for our purpose whether it is
retained or omitted, as it has no bearing upon the
particular question of Jesus and sacrifices. Neither,
indeed, has the other reference where the word
occurs ( 1 2 33 ), "And to love him with all the heart,
and with all the understanding, and with all the
soul, and with all the strength, and to love his
neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt

251

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

offerings and sacrifices." These are not the words
of Jesus, but of a scribe who came to Him and put
the question, "Which is the first commandment
of all ? " But, perhaps, they exactly express the
position and views of our Lord, that love was the
fulfilling of all law ; His response to the scribe marks
His approval of the attitude of the former : " Thou
art not far from the Kingdom of God." We can
only conclude from the general tenor of the Gospel
narrative, that, in relation to the existing religious
order, Jesus adopted the position of that of a pious
Jew. His worship in its every act was characterised
by unusual sincerity and fervency, and what was
empty form to many, was full of intense spiritual
suggestions to Him. His text-book was the Old
Testament. He accepted its teaching with venera-
tion, but He did not hesitate to show that some-
times the letter Hlleth while the spirit giveth life.

Distinctively there are three directions in which
Jesus appeared deliberately to act and teach contrary
to the prevailing -traditions and practices of His
countrymen. These were in regard to Sabbath
observance, fasting, and ceremonial purification.
Objection was taken against the disciples plucking
the ears of corn with which to appease their hunger
as they passed through the fields on a Sabbath
morning. He repels this objection by a reference
to " what David did, when he had need," how that
he actually violated the sanctity of the tabernacle
by taking the shew-bread, reserved for the priests
alone. The argument of Jesus is not exactly that
the end justifies the means, but that the need
justified the act, because man is of infinitely more
value than any such law. It is this that He has in

252

JESUS AS A REFORMER

His mind when He says, " The sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the sabbath : Therefore
the Son of Man is Lord also of the sabbath day."
This was a new doctrine in the ears of His opponents.
Their view was that the law must be obeyed in its
every letter ; and the Sabbath had, as a matter of
fact, become a burden rather than a pleasure.
Instead of man being master of it, the rabbis had by
their traditions and laws made it master of him.
Jesus here indicates that the Sabbath was originally
made for man's enjoyment and happiness a view
that had been entirely obscured. Again, in 3 2L ,
He comes into conflict with His Jewish adversaries
respecting Sabbath observance. It is a question
now of His own action, whether He would heal a
man with a withered hand on the Sabbath or not,
He had already healed a person possessed with an
unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum ; but
we may suppose His enemies were surprised on that
occasion ; possibly that is why they watch Him so
closely now. But He has nothing to conceal. He
challenges them, maintaining that the Sabbath is a
day on which good deeds may be done, and since
this healing is a good act, it is no violation of the
spirit of the Sabbath to perform it. There can be no
doubt, however, that generally the Jewish leaders and
some of the people resented what they regarded as the
lax views of Jesus as to the sanctity of the Sabbath,
and this was one of the main, as well as earliest, reasons
for the hostility which was kindled against Him.^

Our Lord does not appear to have been orthodox
in His attitude to the publicans and sinners (2 15 ) or
in regard to fasting (2 18 ). In respect of the latter,
He was not even so strict as John. Jesus seems to

253

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

have laid no injunction upon His disciples to fast.
Verses 16-18 of chapter 2 show that He did not regard
it as an item of ceremony to be performed at certain
stated intervals and on particular occasions. This
is how it was esteemed by the Jews. They fasted
according to a programme ; and their performance
was as lifeless as a time-table usually is. Jesus
looked upon fasting as the outward expression of
the inward sorrowful condition of the soul. A man
could not fast to order. If there was to be anything
genuine and sincere in the observance, it must be
rather a time of personal suffering, a period of
afflicting one's soul before God. He defends His
disciples from the attack of the scribes by pointing
out that the occasion was not one for fasting it was
not a time of sorrow, but of joy. He was the
bridegroom, and as long as He was with them,
fasting would be utterly out of place ; when He was
taken away from them their sorrow itself would
bring a severe enough fast. And it was true. We
may well believe that during the period of the
Crucifixion, and even until the announcement of the
Resurrection, these disciples fasted in grief and
bitterness of soul. These thoughts of Jesus were
essentially different from those entertained by con-
temporary religious teachers, and of course differen-
tiated Him from them in a marked degree. Again,
we note Jesus imports a spiritual and even natural
significance into fasting that the common observance
then lacked, and without which it was practically
worthless as a religious observance. Perhaps it was
because He realised the utter impossibility of putting
these fresh and powerful truths into the decadent,
worn-out, enfeebled religious system of Judaism, that

254

JESUS AS A REFORMER

He spoke the attractive little parable about the new
wine and the old wine-skins (2 22 ).

In the opening section of the seventh chapter up
to verse 23, we find a strong antagonism shown by
Jesus to the body of tradition which had been accumu-
lating from generation to generation. Almost every
department of life was governed by some restricting
rule, and all was done in the name of the Law. The
particular point which called forth the denunciation
of Christ on this occasion was that of ceremonial
purification. Now there is no doubt these cere-
monial lustrations had a purpose to serve originally,
indicating to the people the necessity of purity in
coming before God ; but they had also a symbolical
significance, for they were designed to suggest the
removal of sin. It would appear that, in the time
of our Lord, scrupulousness in outward observance
had been raised to such a pitch that the symbolic
meaning was either lost or neglected. These rites
and ceremonies made no appeal to the worshipper
now for purity of heart and integrity of soul.
Religion, because of this, was but a whited sepulchre,
fair on the outside, but full of corruption within.
To get the man himself clean not his hands or his
feet or the vessel he used was the great object of
Jesus. He emphasised the thing that was symbolised
in these lustrations ; the Jews laid stress upon the
sign. The difference was fundamental, and in their
eyes of great importance. Jesus shows His great wis-
dom, and His great humanity, in affirming that a man
is not excused from ministering to the needs of those
dependent upon him, even for the sake of making an
offering on the altar. This was practical religion in a
form so strong that His hearers refused to accept it ;

255

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

and apparently their hostility became so marked that
He required to take refuge in flight^ and remained in
secret in the districts of Tyre and Sidon for a time.
We see, then, that although Jesus entertained no
antipathy against Judaism, and respected its services
and engaged in its worship, yet there were several
essential points in which He differed from the
customs of the period. As a reformer concerned
with life and conduct He wished to cut off the ex-
crescences that had attached themselves to worship
and doctrine, and which were hindrances, rather
than helps, to the worshipper. He desired to
breathe a new spirit of sincerity and reality into
every act. Still, His declaration that the Son of
Man hath power on earth to forgive sins, His attitude
in regard to the Sabbath, fasting, and tradition, were
such as, decidedly and emphatically, to distinguish
Him from the other religious teachers of that time.
He was no fierce iconoclast, neither was He a puerile
conformist He thought to breathe into the dry
bones of Judaism, that they might live ; to clothe
empty forms with the flesh and blood of reality and
truth ; but He failed, just because, as He said
Himself, new wine must be put into new skins.

Was there anything new and original in the
doctrine of Jesus respecting God ? We shall
probably have to answer in the negative, but with
some qualification. Van Oosterzee, we think, states
the position quite accurately in the following words
(The Theology of the New Testament, p. 73) : " Jesus
,/ ascribes to God no other attributes than those
already ascribed to Him in the Old Testament ;
but whilst there the holiness of God comes into the
foreground, here love is the most prominent, the

256

JESUS AS A REFORMER

centre of Divine perfection, on account of which
he presents him for the imitation of men (Matt. 5 48 ;
Luke 6 36 )." The great emphasis that the Jews at
various times laid upon the holiness of God and of
His unapproachableness, necessitating a system of
mediation through angels, had had the effect of
removing God further and further from His people.
The tendency to punctilious observance of items
of ritual and ceremony led to the same results.
God only was holy, and the other attributes of
compassion, patience, forbearance and love were
practically forgotten. " The God of the Jews "
of Jesus' day was practically the God of the
Mohammedan of to-day ; and we can easily see how
much our Lord had to do in bringing back "the
beauty of the Lord," by emphasising those Divine
attributes which had been so unpardonably over-
looked and obscured. Here, again, He was but
restoring that which was lost. He was not giving
anything essentially new. Nevertheless, it must
have been soothing for the people to hear God
spoken of and addressed as " Father." We are
already aware this was no new idea in Israel's history,
but it had lain so long dormant that it must have
sounded strange and unfamiliar in the ears of the
people. We know in the case of Jesus Himself,
His assertion of His Divine Sonship provoked the
bitter enmity of the Jews : " Therefore the Jews
sought the more to kill him, because he not only had
broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his
Father, making himself equal with God " (John 5 18 ).
These Jews had apparently so entirely forgotten
the teaching of some of their own religious books
(see references under Son of God), that they were

257 17

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

prepared to slay Him for asserting the Fatherhood
of God. It is quite evident that this conception
of the Supreme Being was regarded by many as
blasphemy ; and in so far this was new theological
teaching, but, as we have already ascertained, it was
not original, and Jesus here was only setting forth
the contents of the Divine idea as revealed in the
Old Testament. In dwelling upon the love, pity,
tenderness, mercy and long-suffering of God, He
was, then, only restoring that which had been
forgotten ; but it had been so long overlooked that
many people regarded this teaching with suspicion,
and not a few with downright antipathy, these
being no doubt influenced by the anthropomorphic
conceptions in this style of teaching. Prof. H. R.
Mackintosh in his little book, The Originality of the
Christian Message, says : " Jesus did more than
reproduce the past. New elements entered into
His own experience of God, and we still read their
reflection in the mind of those who were led by
Him to the Father. It was not for such as He to
possess His knowledge of God by hearsay or as a
matter of quotation. That knowledge was original,
and in part we can analyse its originality." The
last two sentences appear to suggest that by
"original" we are to understand that which is
underived; whereas, in the previous chapter of
the book, it seems to be an equivalent for "new."
The words, " It was not for such as He to possess
His knowledge of God by hearsay," really raise a
very intricate question. It is commonly accepted
that Jesus was dependent upon the ordinary means
available at the time for obtaining knowledge. It
cannot be denied that in addition to this, He

258

JESUS AS A REFORMER

reached a clearer insight and better understanding
of God through experience, meditation, com-
munion and perfect intercourse with the Father
through faith. This we might agree was new,
and even unique. It is, however, with the teaching
of Jesus we are dealing, and when we stated above
that He did not seem to have revealed anything
new or original in this teaching respecting God, it
might appear that assertion was in flat contradiction
of Prof. Mackintosh when he states, " Jesus did
more than reproduce the past." We agree, but
still think His teaching, even concerning God, was
mainly a resurrection of an earlier revelation that
had practically been lost. Prof. Mackintosh goes on
to analyse the originality of this knowledge of God.
(i) The God and Father of Jesus Christ goes
out in search of the sinful. But does not the God
of the Old Testament do that ? We think so,
notwithstanding his note at bottom of p. 51,
quoting Mr. Montefiore : " The rabbis welcomed
the sinner in his repentance. But to seek out the
sinner, and instead of avoiding the bad companion,
to choose him as your friend in order to work his
moral redemption, this was, I fancy, something
new in the religious history of Israel." That might
be so of the rabbis, but did not God seek out Adam
when he transgressed ? Did He not call Abraham ?
Did He not think of the Israelites in their distress in
Egypt, and effect their deliverance ? Does He not
directly appeal to the sinner in Isa. 1 18 \ Surely He,
of Himself, interferes again on their behalf in
Isa. 40 ? Is there a more insistent call, or a more
generous offer of mercy in the New Testament,
than what is found in Isa. 55 ? We need not enlarge

259

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

references ; we think in a general way the position
in the Old Testament is not essentially different
from that in the New. God is urging and entreating
Israel to come to Him for salvation : " O Israel,
thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine
help " (Hos. I3 9 ). (2) " The Fatherhood so declared
is vouched for not by verbal teaching merely; it is
present in the tangible personality of Jesus." But
the idea of incarnation belongs to the Old Testament.
Again we refer to Isa. 7 14fi - and 9 6fi -. (3) Prof.
Mackintosh's third point does not require any
comment. (4) His fourth point is that " National
and particularistic limits are abolished once for all."
Is that not contradicted by Matt, if 23 -, particularly
verse 24 : " But he answered and said, I am not sent,
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel " ?
Still, I think the universal idea is found in the Old
Testament (Isa. 55, 60), and particularly in the
Psalms (see 65, 66, 67, 72, 100). Prof. Mackintosh is,
of course, dealing with a different subject from that
which here occupies our attention, and this may
explain the divergence in our respective views on
this point. We are not to be understood as deny-
ing there was not something quite original in the
message of Jesus respecting God, but we think
many of the ideas upon which He dwelt belonged
to the Old Testament period of revelation, although
obscured and hidden by a long time of neglect.

In St. Mark's Gospel, where the distinctive
teaching of Jesus is not much in evidence, we do
not expect any particular theological statement or
doctrine to occupy a very prominent place. There
are only two passages that may .possibly require a
little attention. One is io 18 , " Why callest thou

260

JESUS AS A REFORMER

me good ? there is none good but one, that is
God." Here, the thought of Jesus is no doubt in
accord with Jewish theology of the time, that God
was the Alone Good. Does Jesus mean to regard
Himself, then, in an inferior state of goodness ?
At this time it seems He does, but an explanation
is offered ; we must not take the statement apart
from its context. This person who said "Good
Master," etc., possibly had used the word " Good "
merely as a complimentary form of address without
any special meaning in it, and Jesus wished to lift
his thoughts to higher things, and to point him to
the source of all true goodness, and so He says to
him, " Why do ye call me good ? " (emphasis on the
last word). "Don't you believe that only God is
good ? " It, perhaps, is hardly a question of our
Lord's comparative goodness at all, but a deliberate
attempt to lift the young man's mind from a
commonplace to a great reality. The following
note by Swete is instructive : " The Son, as Origen
points out (in Js., t. xiii. 2536), is the eiKtav TJ/S ayaOo
Ttjros TOV TrciTpos, and not qua son, TO avTodyaOov.
Hence He disclaims the title aydOos, when it is
offered to Him without regard to His oneness with
the Father, and refers it to the source of Godhead."
The other passage is perhaps of even greater
interest, and has been the subject of much discussion
from a very early date. In Mark I3 32 , speaking of
the " day of the Lord," Jesus says : " But of that
day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father." The variation in the parallel verse in
St. Matthew shows that a difficulty was early felt
respecting this very strong statement by Jesus.

261

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

There the words " neither the Son" are omitted,
and the verse runs (24 36 ) : " But of that day and
hour knoweth no (man), no, not the angels of heaven,
but my Father only " ; and the suggested alternative
readings in Mark are clearly made with the object
of bringing the verse there into line with this from
Matthew. We cannot, however, agree to that
easy way of dealing with the problem. We must
not forget that Mark's is the Earliest Gospel, and it
is a good canon always to accept the more difficult
reading. We must consequently take the words in
St. Mark as they stand, and face the Christological
puzzle they present as best we can. The phrasing
of Mark I3 32 shows that Jesus is speaking in a
crescendo style. Men do not know of this day of
the Lord, nor beings above men (angels), nor One
above the angels (the Son), but only the Father
knows. It is obviously open for a person to insist
that manifestly all that is here said of the Son is that
He is superior to the angels, but inferior to the
Father ; that He is not omniscient, for in respect of
this most important matter in which, indeed, He
was deeply concerned, our Lord says distinctly He
Himself has no prescience ; and, of course, it follows
that, if such were the case in this instance, it may
have been so in many others, and in any event the
Son here admits inferiority to the Father. Well,
we are bound to agree there is an aspect in which
it is so, that a son as such must always be inferior
to a father as such. It was so in the case of Jesus.
No one supposes that as a man born into this world
He was in all points equal with God. In becoming
incarnate, necessarily there was a certain sub-
ordinancy accepted, and it is in this aspect of the

262

JESXJS AS A REFORMER

situation that the Son did not know the day and
hour of the coming of the Lord referred to in
this thirteenth chapter. There were, perhaps, many
things hidden from His human consciousness ; had
it been ^otherwise, He would not have been true
man. If at all times in His earthly life He had
known all things with the fulness of Divine
knowledge, then He could not have been a real
man in tjie ordinary sense of that term, neither
could He have been tempted in all points as we are.
To be a tme man required that He should be sub-
jected to JLuman limitations in respect of knowledge
of coming events. But there was the other side of
the pictire, and we cannot ignore it. Often He is
shown in this Gospel as different from other men,
as knov^ng things hidden from others. This
thirteenth chapter is an illustration. Indeed, the
very ve:se which we are considering is such, for
Jesus h<re at once professes an ignorance that is
human nd a knowledge that is Divine. He could
easily steak about His own want of knowledge, but
how di He know the extent of the ignorance or
knowle< ge of the angels ? He might have concluded,
trength of the beliefs of current theology,

Father knew everything, but how could

on the

that

He affrm so positively that the angels did not

know lie time of the day of the Lord ? We are,

of course, touching here on the verge of the kenotic

theo

furth

Chri

this

in i

sam<

, but do not feel called upon to enter into it
r. We are safe in concluding that the high
ological position given to Jesus already in
ospel is not taken away either by the statement
3 or in I3 32 . The explanation is probably the
n both cases ; the Son, qua Son, was not the

263

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Supreme only Good, neither was He the fountain of all
knowledge. He submitted Himself to great humilia-
tion that He might attain to greater glory, through
the salvation of men by the sacrifice of Himself.

2. So far as we can trace in the public work of
Jesus, He did not differentiate between religion and
morality ; all conduct had its religious aspect, just
as we may say all religion had its moral ;side also.
When He entered upon His work it wasjwith the
purpose of affecting human lives in every (direction,
and to make them better, happier, holier! men and
women. We would be surprised to findjany full-
blown ethical system in the teaching of Jesus, yet
the injunctions He has given are the basis sill of the
very best moral instruction that is forthcoming. In
St. Mark's Gospel, as we know already, we meet little
of this teaching, yet even here we find suffibient to
enlighten us as to those great principles of tonduct
that Jesus recognised as indispensable to a g<od life.
In i2 29f - He declares that the first commandnent of
all the supreme obligation " the chief md of
man," is an enlightened, whole-hearted kve of
God ; and the second or next great moral pinciple
is, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as tlvself."
Only in His own life has the world seerj these
principles actively and fully in operation; t still
waits for the realisation of this supreme moralideal.
Again, we have but to say that this was no ; new
declaration ; it was only a restatement of the rerela-
tion of the Old Testament. The student, of hiltory
even of Jewish history knows how inadequltely
these principles had been interpreted in men's Ives,
and that the great need of the world in the daj} of
Jesus was sincere and fervent love to God and ran ;

264

JESUS AS A REFORMER

and it needs this still. Jesus had no new standard of
conduct to reveal the old was to be realised afresh ;
it was to become a living force instead of a dead letter.
Perhaps in regard to marriage and divorce Jesus
had something new to declare to His generation.
Brace in his Gesta Christi(p. 23) shows the appalling
condition of the law and custom respecting marriage
and divorce in the Roman Empire towards the close
of the Republic. " The licence was frightful.
Augustus attempted in vain to struggle with it by
legal enactments." . " Tertullian represents divorce
as the very purpose and end of Roman marriage."
Now, it is quite certain that Jewish society was by
no means in such a dreadful condition, but it was
possibly affected, to some extent, by this laxity
among the Romans ; and we know as an actual fact
that the school of Hillel was ready to permit divorce
on somewhat trivial grounds. On the other hand,
the school of Shammai refused to allow it for any-
thing less than infidelity ; and probably the right
would only have been given to the man. The Old
Testament law regulating divorce is found in
Deut. 24 1 " 2 , which provides that if a man finds in
his ,wife " some uncleanness," he may write a bill of
divorcement, and send her out of his house. Prob-
ably the 11^ mis (some uncleanness) would be some
sexual immodesty or immorality. So that the school
of Shammai was possibly interpreting this passage
correctly in the attitude it took up. The posi-
tion assumed by Jesus in Mark io 2 " 12 is much more
uncompromising ; in fact, the words of the ninth
verse do not appear to leave any room for divorce
at all. " What therefore God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder." At creation God

265

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

made them male and female that they should
be help-meets one to the other ; in marriage they
became one flesh, and ought not to be divorced by
human intervention. Jesus certainly in this passage
adopts a very advanced attitude, and we are bound
to be impressed by it. We know that in the Sermon
on the Mount, Matthew seems to modify this
position : " It hath been said, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorcement :
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth
her to commit adultery" (Matt. 5 31f ') Yet, even
with the modification contained in the words,
" saving for the cause of fornication," the stability
of the conjugal tie between a man and his wife
affirmed here by Jesus appears to be very absolute.
This was a new doctrine to that generation, and
possibly it would not be regarded as unjustifiable
to affirm that it was a considerable advance on
anything that had been given on this subject
previously. Whether the Church has always acted
on it as she should is a different matter.

Jesus also, in a measure, addresses Himself to the
question as to how a man may attain to the supreme
height of being. The summum bonum He reveals
is very different from that of most moral philo-
sophers. The greatest good towards which a man
should aim, for which he may well sacrifice the whole
world, is spiritual; it is the salvation of his soul.
The supreme end of being is, by losing life to find
life ... by sacrificing oneself for the sake of the
Gospel, to save oneself for evermore (Matt. i6 25ff - or
Mark 8 35ff -). Here, the highest virtue appears to be
self-sacrifice ; but that, of course, is prompted by love

266

JESUS AS A REFORMER

to God, love to His Son, and love to our fellow-men.
Self-sacrifice is to be realised through abundant
service. His own example reveals that : " For even
the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but
to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many "
(io 45 ). Not by self-seeking, not through personal
comfort and happiness, but by seeking constantly
and faithfully the good of others, shall we realise our
own highest good. This, surely, was a new and
unfamiliar note, and scarcely has been appreciated
to its fulness even yet. Men are still difficult to
convince that the way of the Cross is the way to
Glory ; yet Jesus so declared.

3. Only a few sentences will be necessary as to
the attitude of Jesus to Social Economics, as it is
not a very obtrusive theme in St. Mark's Gospel.
We might say generally, that the sympathies of our
Lord were with those who were down- trodden and in
distress, and He was ever ready to alleviate human
sorrow ; but it must not be forgotten that He
ministered to the sick child of Jairus just as readily as
to Bartimaeus the blind beggar. He had no cut-and-
dry plan for righting the social wrongs of the time ;
as far as we know. He accepted the existing social
order as it stood. He, certainly, in our Gospel
speaks against riches. In io 25 we read the striking
saying : " It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into
the Kingdom of God." And the disciples marvelled,
saying, " Who then can be saved ? " The rich
people seemed to them very plentiful ; and no doubt
they did not contemplate with satisfaction a
Kingdom made up of the poor only. Now, what
Jesus had said in the twenty-third verse was, " How

267

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

difficult it is for those who have riches to enter into
the Kingdom of God," and in the twenty-fourth
verse, "Children, how difficult it is to enter into
the Kingdom of God." Obviously, He is not speak-
ing directly against wealth, but pointing out the
hindrance it often is to spiritual attainment. We
think, then, Dearmer is wrong in pointing to Mark
io 25 as an instance of the condemnation of riches,
which he does in the article on " Socialism " in
Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.
After all, the keynote of the teaching of our Lord
on this matter is found in Luke I2 15 : " For a man's
life consisteth not in the abundance of the things
which he possesseth." This is said to rich and poor
alike. It is true, He advised the rich young ruler to
sell all that he had and give to the poor (io 21 ), which
seems to favour an equal distribution of wealth.
But, of course, it would be quite illogical to argue
from the particular case to the universal. Jesus was
clearly touching upon this young man's peculiar
weakness. On the other hand, He does not seem
to have been unduly solicitous for the poor in the
case of the woman with the alabaster box of ointment
" For ye have the poor with you always, and when-
soever ye will ye may do them good : but me ye have
not always " (i4 7 ). Brace in his Gesta Christi points
out that Jesus scarcely ever alluded to any of the
great social evils of His time slavery, prostitution,
war, etc. The ethics that He taught condemned all
these, of course, but He was aiming after a spiritual
regeneration ; touching the root of human misery and
distress of every kind in endeavouring to destroy evil
in every form. His great ambition was to annihilate
that which He regarded as the true cause of all

268

JESUS AS A REFORMER

social and moral wrong sin ; an undertaking which
demanded, and still requires, Omnipotence itself.

4. When we remember the flammability of the
Jewish national life and the expectations entertained
of deliverance by the Messiah, coupled with the fact
that Jesus claimed to be this Messiah, we can under-
stand that there may have been times when the im-
pulse came to Him to take up the National Messianic
r61e and play it to a finish. Yet, if such thoughts
came to Him, they were repressed at once. He
appears to have known right from the beginning
that victory would not come by that way. So we
find no political declarations from our Lord de-
nouncing the Roman suzerainty. He acts as a loyal
citizen, and maintains a respectful attitude to the
lawfully constituted powers. The Pharisees and
Herodians thought they would lay a trap for Him
in regard to paying tribute to the Romans (i2 13a ),
but without committing Himself in any way, Jesus
very effectually turned the tables on themselves by
His famous dictum, " Render to Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are
God's." One thing stands out perfectly clear and
distinct in the life of Christ that is, He was no
disturber of the public peace.

As a Reformer, then, we may conclude our Lord had
no desire towards an upheaval of the established order.
In religion He was true to the best in the past, giving
new life to forms and ceremonies that had long been as
dead, arousing men's consciences to the baneful influ-
ence of sin, and calling them to enter into a new bond
with God the Father, of holiness and righteousness.
He gave a new moral ideal in the " golden rule " of
conduct, which is to be inspired by fervent love.

269

CHAPTER XII

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

THE Shorter Catechism in question 23 contemplates
the redemptive work of our Lord in three aspects,
viz. as prophet, priest, and king. We have been
engaged in considering what we may regard as the
kingly office, when occupied with His Messianic
claims and His doctrines respecting the Kingdom ;
presently we must turn our attention more par-
ticularly to His sufferings and His expiation for sin,
which would correspond with His priestly character ;
now, for a very short time, we must be concerned
with His prophetic office. And even this we cannot
enter into with very great fulness. No doubt all the
revelations that Jesus gave in His teaching about
God His love and mercy, His compassion and long-
suffering might appropriately enough be regarded
as belonging to His prophetic work. But we shall
more especially be occupied with considering it in
respect of that which could not be otherwise known
the revelation of the future so far as it referred
to the disciples, the Kingdom of God, Judaism and
the Jews, and His own reappearance. In St. Mark's
Gospel these topics are mostly gathered together,
and found in a somewhat mixed condition in the
thirteenth chapter. There is no need to assume

270

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

that all the declarations found therein were made at
one time. St. Mark may have here blended together
savings uttered on different occasions and under
different circumstances, and so he has produced a
section that appears somewhat inharmonious and
certainly very difficult.

i . The future of the disciples is not at all to be
attractive. Our Lord had now made clear that He
Himself was to suffer. He at length gives them to
understand that they shall not escape. Persecution
is something that they may look forward to with
undoubted certainty. It shall come, too, at any
rate in the first instance, from their own country-
men. Up till now the synagogue had been open to
them, and they were at liberty to join in Jewish
worship ; the time was coming when they would be
driven out of the synagogue, and when they would
be hailed before rulers and kings just because they
professed to believe on Him. But a promise of
inspiration is given to them. When they were
accused, they were not to be over-anxious as to their
defence. The Holy Spirit would come upon them
and teach them what they ought to say. Perhaps
in this way they shall best be able to give that
testimony which it was necessary the world should
receive. Thus could they most successfully pro-
claim their faith and trust in the resurrected, living
Christ. This assurance of the gift of the Spirit is
practically the only ray of hope that is given to them, .
as the dark and foreboding prospect of the future is
unveiled before their minds. Amid much that is
uncertain, so far as the coming days are concerned,
they at least can count upon these two things:
(i) that they shall suffer grievous persecution, and

271

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

(2) that their hope of deliverance was in dependence
upon the Spirit which should be given them. The
future is, however, very uncertain ; a great obliga-
tion rests upon them to watch, to be prepared for
whatever the times might bring. Signs and portents
are mentioned, indicating the progress of coming
events ; but even these are vague and indeterminate.
Therefore, the great and solemn duty is urged again
with emphatic earnestness. " And what I say unto
you I say unto all, Watch " (i3 37 ). *

2. What now were to be the prospects of the
Kingdom of God the Kingdom of the Messiah,
which was to be an everlasting Kingdom ? He was
soon to pass away in suffering ; they were to be
persecuted and driven out of the synagogues ; they
were to be maltreated and abused. How could the
Kingdom possibly come, how could the work be
carried on in the future, in this period of strife into
which they were about to enter ? Little, indeed, is
said here distinctively of the Kingdom ; perhaps
only two passages may be regarded as constructively
having reference to it. The days of grief and
sorrow, of anguish, persecution and suffering, shall
be shortened for the Elect's sake (verse 20) ; and
when catastrophies have reached their full climax,
the end is at hand, and victory for His people and
His Kingdom is certain ; for " then shall they see
the Son of man coming in the clouds with great
power and glory. And then shall he send his angels,
and shall gather together his elect." So the King-
dom shall be won, but not without a fight, not with-
out the anguish, anxiety and bloodshed of war.
The King shall come in glory, and the inspiring
vision that they had entertained for so long shall be

272

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

realised at last. Thus does He, by a sentence or
two, lift up their spirits from a picture that might
have appeared more distressful than they were able
to bear, and give to them a glimpse of that future
glory which was to beckon them on through all the
sorrow and darkness, until their dream had been
transformed into a spiritual reality. The Kingdom
was not lost ; the future, however dark, was full of
hope.

3. Undoubtedly, however, the strong section in
the prophetic utterances of Jesus, as St. Mark has
them arranged in this thirteenth chapter, is that
which concerns Judaism and the Jews. The disciples,
with their Master, were leaving the temple, and one
of them, impressed with the beauty and magnificence
of the building, made an appreciative remark to Jesus ;
it is the cue to Him, and He immediately proceeds
to foretell its doom. Nothing more passes at the
moment, but when they had retired to the Mount
of Olives, Peter, James, and John, the three favoured
disciples, with Andrew now added, ask " him privately,
Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what shall
be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled ? "
( I 3 3 ~ 4 )- Jesus then proceeds to give an account of
many things that must happen before this destruc-
tion of the temple shall take place. Wars at a
distance, elemental commotions, social disturbances
these are only the prelude to the greater troubles
to come. The real sign is found in verse 14 : " But
when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it
ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then
let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains,"
etc. It would appear that the fulfilment of the

273 1 8

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple
would follow so speedily upon the appearance of
the " abomination of desolation," that the people
were to flee with the greatest possible haste from
Jerusalem. It has been found very difficult to
interpret this sign. Some think it signifies the
Roman army entering Palestine. It is pointed out,
on the other hand, that that was not an unknown
experience. Others believe it has reference to a
contemplated defilement of the Holy of Holies, such
as was done by Antiochus in 168 B.C. "The
patristic interpreters thought of Pilate's attempt to
introduce the effigy of the emperor into the city,
or of similar insults offered to the Jewish faith by
Hadrian " (Swete, p. 305). Probably the idea of
the appearance of a Roman army closely investing
Jerusalem is the best. Salmon thinks " the tradi-
tional story is credible that, in consequence of our
Lord's warnings, there took place a flight of
Christians from the besieged city to Pella, when the
Romans, who had planted their standards in the
Holy place ', retired for a time " (p. 472). This
tradition is possibly traceable to Eusebius (H.E., 3).
There is no doubt the army under Titus proved
itself an " abomination of desolation," and Jerusalem
and the temple were in ruins before the Romans
obtained complete victory in A.D. 70.

We discover in the fall of Jerusalem and the
destruction of the temple, and in the consequent
dispersion of the Jewish people, a very evident and
clear fulfilment of this prophecy by Jesus. But the
ultimate result was far-reaching in its significance,
for it really involved the ending of the sacrificial
system that had been carried on for such a long

274

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

time. It also implied a relaxing, for the Christians,
of those persecutions that had first come to them
from the Jews. But, so far as St. Mark's Gospel
is concerned, the extremely interesting point for us
is that Jesus here foretells events which we can trace
as practically having been fulfilled. This, of course,
has some influence upon the views we entertain
regarding Him. It does not at all follow that
because He was able thus accurately to forecast the
course of future events that, therefore, He was the
Messiah the Son of God. We believe, of course,
other men long before His incarnation were in
possession of this gift. We have only to think of the
prophets and seers of the Old Testament Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. But we are bound to give
some weight to the possession of this prophetic
power ; and having found in other ways Jesus was the
Christ of God, this ability to reveal future events
lends confirmation to such other evidence. And it
certainly provides us with a reason for lifting up the
personality of Jesus far above that of the men of
His time ; for we are not aware that any of them
claimed to possess this gift, or professed to be able
to unravel the very tangled skein which that period
of political history provided. The prophet's voice
had long ceased in Israel. John the Baptist had
been a meteor passing over the troubled heavens ;
but Jesus gave vivid portraits of the future that were
to prove of great help to His followers in the trying
experiences and conditions that awaited them.

4. But the great difficulty we experience in our
interpretation of this chapter is to explain the
references Jesus makes to His own second coming.
This is to be heralded in by celestial commotions

275

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

and upheavals. The sun is to be turned into dark-
ness, as in Joel 2 31 which prophecy St. Peter claimed
as being fulfilled at the day of Pentecost (Acts 2 16ff -) ;
indeed, this passage in St. Mark bears a general
resemblance to that referred to in Joel. Little,
however, can be inferred from that. These theo-
phanies if we may regard the second coming of the
Son of Man as such nearly all bear the same
character, and are set in the same framework. The
ninety-seventh Psalm is another interesting example.
Jesus undoubtedly, in Mark I3 24fi -, wishes to
represent this reappearance of the Son of Man as
an occurrence of great significance and of much
splendour. He has already connected the events
with Daniel's prophecy. Now, His disciples would
fully understand the phrase " Son of Man," and
might in turn relate it to Dan. 7, and He may have
even used some of the words of that chapter (e.g.
verse 13). The sending of the angels to gather in
the elect from the four quarters of the heavens,
would correspond to the saints of the Most High
obtaining possession of the Kingdom (Dan. 7 22 ).
Therefore it might be possible, on the analogy of
St. Peter's interpretation of Joel, to regard this pre-
diction of Daniel, which was adopted by Jesus, as
having received fulfilment more or less exactly in the
visible manifestation of the Spiritual Kingdom of
Messiah. This may be considered to have taken
place when the Jewish Christians cut themselves off
distinctly from Judaism, and founded a new com-
munity ; or when, for instance, the Kingdom took
visible form in the Christian Church of the latter
part of the first century. -, . '

Still, it is doubtful whether this material mani-

276

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

festation of the Kingdom would have been described
in such terms by Jesus, and there is a personal note
in the promised return of the Son of Man that cannot
be overlooked. Although He professes no knowledge
of the time of its occurrence, the event .is quite
certain. There need be little hesitation in thinking
that the early Christians expected a speedy return
of their Master. In I4 25 He says, " I will drink no
more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I
drink it new in the Kingdom of God." These
words, taken with what He states in the closing part
of chapter 13, would create expectations in the minds
of the disciples . Yet in this latter chapter, as we have
seen, He makes it clear that the time is unknown
even to Himself. We must really leave it at that.
We can only accept His word that He will return ;
but when, we may not guess. Still, many Christians
regard this passage (i3 24fi *) as referring to the end of
the present age, when, it is elsewhere promised, the
Christ shall come with power and great glory, and He
shall gather in His saints to share with Him in that
glory.

Since He is to come again, and the time is
uncertain, they are to be constantly watching and
waiting. In particular they are to take care that
'they be hot deceived by false Messiahs. Men shall
arise and declare, " I am he," but they must not
follow f them ; to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
This evidently was a danger that Jesus apprehended
greatly, for He returns to it two or three times in this
chapter. There can be little doubt that the object
He.had before Him when speaking as He does even
in this apocalyptic manner was a very practical one.
It was not merely with the purpose of revealing the

277

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

future. Nay, rather, it was to impress upon them
that, from henceforth, they were soldiers on guard
in an enemy's country ; they were therefore to be
prepared for any emergency. An arduous and
difficult campaign was in front of them ; a cruel and
implacable foe would challenge every inch of the
ground. Heroic endurance (verse 13) and constant
watching were indispensable. This section gives
us a picture in some of its verses of the circum-
stances under which the early Christians laboured
and struggled, and it reveals likewise the great faith,
perseverance, and patience that came upon them after
the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.

In the end, when we have studied the revelation
to the best of our ability, there is not much of
the future distinctly visible. The destruction of
Jerusalem ah event which circumstances of a
political kind would suggest to the discerning mind
His second coming described in the apocalyptic
style not infrequently adopted by some of the
Jewish prophets and poets, really sum up His
references to future events. The one thing that
the disciples would gather from the impressive
sentences was that stripes, bonds and afflictions
(Acts 2o 23 ) awaited them.

The theme, however, that seemed to possess a
powerful fascination for Jesus, we might indeed say
a morbid attractiveness, is that of suffering for
Himself first of all, for that is approaching very
near; but for His followers also, although this is
somewhat in the distance. Towards the close of
His earthly ministry He is evidently very desirous
of filling their minds with this idea quite possibly
with the intention of preparing them for what is

278

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

coming. Only three of them had seen the fulness
of the glorious vision of the heights, but now all are
to go down into the valley, and their faith is to be
tried in a way that they have never experienced
before. Many events seem to have been crowded
into the last week at Jerusalem, and some of them
appear to us rather contradictory. One day the
high-water mark of the popularity of Jesus is
reached as He receives the public welcome into ,the
Holy City; the next, His spiritual power is recognised
as He cleanses the temple ; and two or three days
after that He is seen piassing along the streets
bearing His cross. "The hour has come," and,
humanly speaking, it has been brought about by
one of His followers. Somehow, Jesus appears to
have realised that He was to suffer at the Passover,
yet He knows also that He will eat of this feast.
The earlier part of chapter 14 leaves us with the
impression that He has, beforehand, made special
preparations. This was certainly not an unusual
thing to do. When we remember the multitudes
that crowded into Jerusalem from the provinces
and other scattered Jewish communities, we can
understand the necessity for making arrangements
in anticipation of the event. But it would seem
from verse 12 that their Master had even forestalled
His disciples on this occasion. The suggestion in
verses 13-14 of meeting the man bearing the pitcher
is, that this was more than a mere coincidence;
but we need hardly press that point. Knowing
something of the customs of the East, we can under-
stand that a man bearing a pitcher of water would
certainly be an unusual sight in Jerusalem at any
time, but especially during the observance of the

279

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Passover. Swete suggests that this man " was
probably a servant ; he had been sent to fetch a
supply of water, probably from Siloam, and for
use at the feast." Menzies, on the other hand,
remarks : "As water is generally fetched by women
in the East, a man with a water-jar would act as a
good signal." We think this all points to a pfe-
arrangement on the part of our Lord, and the man,
whether servant or not, was specially made to act
as a guide. The disciples were to follow him, and
enter into the house after him, where they would
be shown a large upper room prepared for the
occasion.

We do not raise the question here whether this
was the Passover feast they observed, or whether it
was a new institution more or less in imitation of
that feast ; neither do we feel called upon to
discuss whether, if it was the Passover, they had
anticipated the regular time of observance by one
day, which is suggested by the statement in
John i8 28 . We feel these points are all outside the
scope of our main subject ; and further, even if we
had anything to contribute to the solution of the
difficulty (which we have not), it would in no way
affect the Christology of the Earliest Gospel.
Certainly, if it could be established that Jesus
anticipated the regular observance of the Passover
feast by some twenty-four hours, it would give us
ground for saying that at this juncture He claimed
to have the right to alter at will the long-observed
customs and laws of the older economy. We are
not greatly anxious to follow up that point, because
it apparently involves a conflict between the
Synoptics and the fourth Gospel; and who shall

280

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

reconcile them now ? We shall presently discover
that Jesus claims something more than to alter the
observance of a Jewish feast by one day.

We take it, then, that this was the Passover that
Jesus and His disciples were engaged in eating, and
it was an acknowledgment on His part of the
binding character of that institution. Up to the
very last, we may affirm, Jesus shows Himself a
loyal Jew. The details of this observance, so far as
St. Mark's Gospel is concerned, are very meagre
indeed. Our author appears to be hurrying on to
the more impressive and amazing fact of the
crucifixion. Matthew and Luke furnish more par-
ticulars; we need only quote 22 15 of the latter
Gospel as illustrating the thoughts in the mind of
Christ at this time : " With desire I have desired'
to eat this passover with you before I suffer."
There can be no doubt He recognises that the end
of His earthly life has almost come, and in the
upper room He is taking farewell of His disciples.
Events had occurred quickly, but not so rapidly
that He has not foreseen them all, and understood
the signs of the times. During the course of the
Supper Jesus made it plain to them that His hour
had come that finish to His work which He had
so frequently announced to them already. With
calm dignity and unfailing resolution He intimates
the impending suffering. But saddest thought of
all, the end is to be brought about through the
treachery of one of their own number. Small
wonder, "they began to be sorrowful, and to say
unto him one by one, Is it I ? " In this Gospel He
does not enlighten them, and only veiledly so in the
others. We are not told either of Judas going out

281

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

*

into the darkness to carry out his deed of treachery ;
we are informed in verse 21 of the solemn warning,
and we might say even appeal, that Jesus makes,
yet without success. Only John tells of the giving
of the ^frcofjiiov the chosen fragment by Jesus to
Judas, and in this act making a silent yet most
eloquent appeal to his better nature. It was all
in vain "he then having received the sop went
immediately out."

With his departure the atmosphere seems to have
cleared for a little ; the eleven do not quite realise
the course of present events. Now, our Lord, in a
simple, solemn institution which is to be a memorial
of His death for all time, gathers up all the recent
teaching concerning Himself, and through this new
rite illustrates the suffering He is about to endure.
Then, by a prayer of thanksgiving, He closes the
old economy and opens a new, which is to be
perpetuated throughout the ages. Nothing could
be so sublimely simple as the record of the institution
of the Lord's Supper found in verses 22-25. The
bread broken is His body, which shall be broken on
the morrow ; the wine poured out His blood,
that shall be shed. Deliberately, we think, Jesus
connects this institution with the Passover ; and
early His followers must have understood that it
involved the passing away of the old feast, and the
introduction of an observance that was new. The
Pauline Epistles show it was soon recognised that
He was Himself the paschal lamb " For even
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us " (i Cor. 5 7 ) ;
He is " the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world" (Rev. I3 8 ). Never, I think, could the
disciples forget this scene in the upper room ; as

282

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

yet they did not quite grasp all its significance,
but the simple act would be stamped upon their
memories for ever. And it is certainly not without
its pathetic import. Jesus wished His memory to
be treasured up for all time coming. He was
about to die, yet He desired, at the moment, to
find immortality in the affectionate remembrance
of these, His friends and companions during these
past years of activity and labour. He wishes His
work to live on, and prosper even more abundantly,
in the future. But above all else, He desired His
teaching and revelation to be preserved and con-
tinued. He and His companions were about to bid
farewell to the old familiar religious experiences,
yet they were to remember all that was good in
them, and in particular, they were to find in Him
the fulfilment of the old and the foundation of the
new. And He took " the cup . . . and he said
unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament,
which is shed for many " (i4 24 ) Could Jesus have
instituted this supper, or spoken such words, unless
He was conscious that He was the Messiah ? Why,
in this last phrase He appropriates the very words
of Isa. 5 3 12 , " and he bare the sin of many " ! Are we
putting it too strongly when we say that it would
have been blasphemy for Him to have acted and
spoken as He did on this occasion, if He was not
satisfied that- He was verily the Son of God ? The
solemn service concluded with a song of praise,
part of the Hallel ; no doubt closing with Psalm 1 18.
How significant to Jesus now would be the words,
" I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of
the Lord." " Blessed is he that cometh in the name
of the Lord ! " Part of the very language with

283

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

which they had greeted Him as He entered Jerusalem
a few days before ! And, having chanted these
phrases, " O give thanks unto the Lord ; for he is
good : for his mercy endureth for ever," Jesus
passed out into the darkness, to .engage in His
last fight in Gethsemane.

There is a compound word met with a few times
in the Old Testament, and particularly in the
twenty-third Psalm, which has been of interest to
scholars. TTJD^ has been translated "(the valley
of) the shadow of death," and is usually interpreted
as death itself. It is not that. Perhaps (the valley
of) deathlike gloom brings out the idea more distinctly.
The thought underlying the word is a deep gorge,
into which the sun's rays do not penetrate, and
there are found both the coldness and shadow
commonly associated with death. When Jesus went
out of the upper room and crossed the brook Cedron,
He entered into the valley of the shadow into the
deathly gloom. Gethsemane is a word that is
pregnant with imperfectly defined significance to
most Christians ; possibly it suggests far more than
can be understood or expressed. There is a
mystery in the agony in the Garden that we cannot
explain. The trend of the narrative leads us to
assume that Jesus, most deliberately, went forward
to this contest as if He clearly knew that it must
take place. When He had entered into the Garden*
He enjoined the disciples to remain where they were,
while He went away to pray. But He takes Peter,
James, and John with Him, and sets them on guard.
Clearly, the burden of His prayer is that the cup,
which He was about to drink, might pass from
Him. Now, we must not disguise from ourselves the

284

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

extraordinary situation which is here revealed. Jesus,
for some considerable time, had been teaching the
disciples not only that He was the Messiah, but
that in the fulfilling of that office He must become
the Suffering Servant of Jehovah ; and that in
Him those prophecies, such as Isa. 53, were to find
fulfilment. He certainty had insisted that for both
Him and them the path of suffering was the way
to glory. He had been looking forward to this
"cup" for a more or less lengthened period; yet
now, as it is about to be put into His hand, He
shrinks from it in fearfulness, and desires to put it
from Him. One is bound to think at this point of
Socrates and his cup of hemlock, and to contrast
his calm courage with the horror and anguish that
now appear to overwhelm Jesus. Up till now, and
after the Confession at Csesarea PhiKppi, our Lord
had talked quite freely of the sufferings that awaited
Him, and of the decease He should accomplish at
Jerusalem ; the thought was familiar to His mind.
Yet it may be that now, as He came into more
immediate contact with the reality, the tragedy of
the morrow appalled Him, and that for the moment
He was, as it were, swept off His feet by the dreadful
humiliation to which He was about to be subjected.
Nevertheless, we must know He was no coward.
As a man, there was no reason why death in an
extremely cruel form should not have appeared
utterly repugnant and loathsome to Him. He had
feelings such as other men possess ; and it is possible
that if Socrates had been in Jesus' place he would
not have played the part with greater heroism.
That there was no cowardice in His shrinking now,
will be understood when we remember that under

285

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

cover of darkness He might have escaped and
hidden Himself. But He is a willing victim ; He
looks upon the experiences the coming hours were
to bring Him with the deepest horror, and yet He
will not flee from them. The battle for the souls
of men is really fought out in the darkness of
Gethsemane. Here Jesus is both priest and sacrifice.

Still, people will contrast this shrinking on the part
of our Saviour in the hour of His extreme ordeal
with the bold bearing and courageous behaviour of
" the noble army of martyrs." Somewhat recent
experiences have, perhaps, so enlightened us as to
enable us to form a better estimate of the attitude
of Christ on this occasion. The late war furnished
many instances of men of a highly developed
sensitive nature and of keen and vivid imagination,
who shrank with the greatest horror from the carnage
of blood, and yet who, knowing the needs of the
situation, bravely went forward to do and die for
their country. Was their courage not as great, was
it not possibly of a higher type, than that of those
of a duller imagination and of a more sluggish
sensitive system ? The very constitution of the one
class added untold agonies undreamt of by the other.
Surely it was so with Jesus. He probably could
discern, and be affected by, forces and elements in
the situation which now confronted Him, that
would not have been perceived by another. The
words suggest that His physical suffering was more
or less momentary and a surprise ; the mental
anguish was more bitter than death itself.

It is likely quite true that some Christian people
have been much exercised in their minds over the
" agony in the Garden," and there are those who

286

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

appear to think an apology for it is necessary. Per-
haps it would have been more spectacular if Jesus
had gone forth from the upper room to the Sanhedrin,
where Judas and some of the Council were hatching
their plot, and openly challenged them to do their
worst. Possibly some men would have been more
impressed if there had been no Gethsemane, and if
Jesus had remained calm and unperturbed through-
out the hours that lay between the eating of the Supper
and His Crucifixion. We may be quite sure if this
story had been a work of fiction rather than real
history, something like that would have been the line
along which it would have run, and it would have
been just as unnatural and untrue to real life, as
fiction often is. Perhaps it is difficult to behold
Jesus as a hero while He wrestles in the darkness of
the Garden ; but had there been no Gethsemane,
no agony there, other objectors would soon have ex-
claimed, " How unnatural ! How improbable ! Was
this a man at all that He could suffer thus un-
moved ? " If this had been how He went forward
to His death, would His very sufferings have become
the bond of union and sympathy between Him and
His people which we find to be the case ? It seems
very unlikely, for human nature has little in common
with a sphinx; and the heroes and heroines whom we
meet with in daily life are those who, while occasion-
ally they may be on the mount of transfiguration,
have oftener possibly to descend and pass through
the valley of the deathlike gloom. Moreover, it
may be, as many good people have often thought,
that there were elements in this agony in the Garden
that human eye could not see, nor human mind
understand. " My soul is exceeding sorrowful

287

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

unto death." Is there not more than a suggestion
of spiritual struggle here ? It is possible that the
main cause of the shrinking of Jesus now is not the
physical pain which is in prospect, but the sin that
demands such suffering physical, moral and
spiritual as an expiation. He is giving Himself a
ransom for many (io 45 ), and as the Lamb bore the
sins of its victim, so Jesus is now about to bear the
transgressions of His people, and the weight of that
burden was almost more than He could bear, so that
His righteous soul shrank from it in horror. We shall
probably never be able to explain, nor understand,
all the antecedents and consequents of this most
pathetic period in the earthly life of our Lord. It
may be very well regarded as a crisis in His work of
atonement. It is surprising that so many details
are now given, when we remember that Peter,
James and John were sleeping while He prayed, and
that afterwards He does not seem to have had any
opportunity of explaining the situation to them.

.Yet we must not forget that one sublime ray of
light penetrates into the darkness of Gethsemane,
and gilds the mystery which its shadows hold as
with a golden glory this is our Lord's perfect
submission to the will of God. However ardently
He desired the cup to pass, however earnestly He
prayed in the hour of His soul's travail, there is the
spirit of calm resignation through it all " Neverthe-
less, not what I will, but what thou wilt." No more
heroic, more courageous attitude could be shown
than this, and certainly it must be affirmed that after
the struggle is ended in the Garden, the shrinking
and horror appear all to have passed away from
the mind of Christ, so that when His captors

288

DAYS OF CALAMITY AND SUFFERING

approach, He faces them without any hesitation or
fear.

The period of agony in Gethsemane is one of the
most solemn and awe-inspiring experiences recorded
of Him. It is certainly difficult to reconcile His
appearance there with those lofty presentations
which we find, for instance, in such incidents as the
Transfiguration or Baptism, or with the possession
of those powers to which His miraculous works bear
testimony. Perhaps we shall agree, that in the
Garden, for a time, His Divinity was in eclipse, and
His majesty was veiled for deep and mysterious
reasons, known to God alone. This suffering was,
many believe, an essential part of the atoning work
of Christ. And finally, we are satisfied that
although He goes forth from the Garden a captive
in the hands of cruel men, yet He is still the Son
of God, and the Son of Man ; true to the highest
revelation that He enjoys, and faithful even unto
death. His love inspires Him to the supremest
sacrifice.

289 19

CHAPTER XIII

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

THE importance which St. Mark attached to the
death of Jesus is seen from the amount of space he
devotes to it in his Gospel. He has nothing to
say concerning His birth, but about one-sixth of his
whole book is connected with His death. Indeed,
the prominence is more pronounced than that
comparison suggests, for practically the theme of
suffering and death pervades the Gospel from the
eighth chapter onward. Chapters i-io are occupied
with a narrative of the three years 9 public ministry,
while no less than six chapters (11-16) are devoted
to the last week in Jerusalem. It might be con-
sidered a very unequal division of the book, yet it
is instructive to remember the very marked pro-
minence that is thus given to what we may designate
the more distinctively expiatory work of Jesus.

After the betrayal of his Master by Judas, the
former is swiftly taken before the High Priest. The
description in I4 53fi - leads us to suppose this was
a full meeting of the Sanhedrin. Whether it had
been sitting during the whole night waiting for the
arrival of Jesus, does not appear. If this was so,
judging from the article " Sanhedrin " in Kitto's
Biblical Cyclopedia (vol. iii. p. 765) it was very

290

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

unusual ; the common time for sitting being every
day except the Sabbath and festivals, " from the
termination of the daily morning sacrifice till the
daily evening sacrifice." However it was, Jesus was
brought before the Council as speedily as possible^
and during the night, which is clearly an inference
from I5 1 . St. Mark's account leaves the impression
that several charges of a general character were at
first made against Him, but these could not be
substantiated for want of legal evidence. We must
assume that while the court was undoubtedly biased
against their prisoner, they would maintain an
appearance of strict conformity to the canons of
justice. Besides, there were in the Council a few
sympathisers with Jesus, and these, no doubt,
according to their power, would insist that He
should receive fair play in His trial. When these
charges failed, an attempt was made to prove that He
had spoken blasphemy against the temple (i4 58 ) ;
probably the witnesses were sincere enough in the
evidence they gave on this point, and we know
literally it was true. But we have seen it was all
a misapprehension, which could easily have been
explained. Again, the Evangelist refers to the
confusion among the witnesses. If he was writing
to Romans, this point would be well understood,
and we are not surprised that he thus emphasises
it by repetition. Even if these witnesses had agreed
in their testimony, it does not seem to have been
strong enough to secure the condemnation of the
prisoner, and we may be sure those who were in the
plot, and had negotiated the terms with Judas,
began to be anxious. In this emergency the
High Priest intervenes. Who the High Priest was

291

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

St. Mark does not mention, and we are, therefore,
saved any discussion as to whether it was Annas or
Caiaphas. Probably he interferes in order to secure
some statement from Jesus that shall help towards
His own condemnation; yet such an attempt to
obtain incriminating evidence was strictly against
the usual procedure of the Sanhedrin. If this was
his purpose, at first he fails Jesus answers nothing.
Here is a silence on the part of our Lord that we
may well try to interpret. The Evangelists dwell
particularly on it ; and we must, therefore, for a
moment consider His attitude before the Council.
It is always the privilege of a prisoner to refuse to
answer any questions which may contribute to his
own condemnation. Is that the meaning of the
silence of Christ on this occasion ? We think the
answer is bound to be in the negative ; certainly He
was under no obligation to help forward the Jewish
plot. Perhaps He realised, as the witnesses were
giving their evidence, that the best thing He could
do to allow its weakness to be manifest even to the
Council, was to remain silent. It is clear, too, from
verse 63, " What need we any further witnesses ? "
that this weakness was so transparent that they could
not hide it from themselves. Possibly, however,
there may have been other considerations that led
Jesus to make no answer to the charges now urged
against Him. They were directed mostly towards
His teaching and life. These could really answer
for themselves. He believed they were above re-
proach, and did not require any defence. It was
difficult for falsehood to refute the truth ; and His
life was true, well known, open before the world.
It is a different matter, however, when the High

292

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

Priest puts to Him the challenging question, " Art
thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? " An
answer must be given now. Silence would be
misunderstood, might even be culpable cowardly.
" And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the Son of
man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
in the clouds of heaven." " Blasphemy, blasphemy,"
shout many in the Council. " And they all con-
demned him to be guilty of death." There can
be no longer any doubt as to the import of the
words " Son of Man " ; no question as to the extent
of the claim that Jesus here makes. Beautifully
dignified, both in silence and in speech, He bears
Himself throughout all these proceedings before
the Sanhedrin. He does not fight for His life,
neither does He recklessly throw it away. He is not
numbed by terror now, as He appeared to have been
a few hours ago. Anticipation of the fight is often
worse than its reality.

According to the article referred to above, the whole
proceedings before the Sanhedrin were informal
and illegal. " No criminal trial could be carried
through in the night" (Mishna Sanhedrin, iv. i).
Besides, no capital sentence of guilt could be pro-
nounced on the same day as the trial ; it required
to be reserved until the following day, and so a trial
on the capital charge could not be held on the day
of preparation. All these points seem to have been
violated in the case of Jesus. There appears to have
been introduced into the proceedings on this
occasion an unseemly and unusual haste. St.
Matthew, perhaps, explains this feverish desire for
the immediate condemnation of our Lord. " And
they consulted that they might take Jesus by

293

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the
feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people "
(Matt. 26*~ 5 ) . Evidently the popularity of Jesus was
still something that they feared. For the moment
it was in eclipse, and they must use all their craft
and the utmost expedition to put Him to death
before the multitude came to its senses again. It is
a tribute to the power of Christ, even at the very
last, that the Jewish rulers thus feared Him. He,
the Man from Nazareth, had commenced His fight
alone, with few advantages ; they had opposed Him
and dogged His every footstep. Now He is their
prisoner, yet they cannot rest until they have Him
nailed to the tree, so conscious are they of the real
power of the personality of Jesus of Nazareth.

While this travesty of justice is being enacted in
the Sanhedrin, an incident is taking place within the
precincts of the High Priest's palace that cuts deeper
into the soul of Jesus than anything said or done
before the Council. The wound that one some-
times receives from one's friends is often too deep to
bleed, but is more grievous than death itself. It was
exceedingly trying for the Lord calmly to contem-
plate the treachery of Judas ; crueller still when in
the hour of His need " they all forsook him and
fled"; but "the most unkindest cut" of all was
when Peter, one of His favourite disciples, denied
Him. We know He had warned this disciple ; that
circumstance, perhaps, only added sharpness to the
thrust. If Peter had been surprised, there might
have been some excuse for him. But the mercy
of the Messiah is greater than the sin of Peter. The
crowing of the cock brought back to him the warning
words of his Lord, " And when he thought thereon,

294

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

he wept " bitter tears of repentance. And we can
only imagine the grief of his soul, as clouds and
darkness gathered thick around his spirit, in the
day of the Cross.

However eager the opponents of Jesus might be to
have Him speedily put to death, some delay was
inevitable. The Sanhedrin could try a person on
the capital charge, but had not power to carry out
its own sentence of death. They had found Jesus
of Nazareth guilty of blasphemy, and in their
opinion He was worthy of condemnation, but they
had to satisfy the Roman Governor, Pilate, on this
latter point ; and it is transparently evident that
they were not very certain of their power to obtain
the death sentence on the evidence they were able
to furnish. It is quite clear that they now change
their tactics, and proceed to give a political colour
to the movement and work of Jesus. St. Mark's
account in the earlier part of chapter 15 is not so com-
plete as we would desire, but we can easily gather
the drift of his meaning. When we are informed
in verse 2 that Pilate asked Jesus, " Art thou the
King of the Jews ? " we must presume that this is
the charge that His accusers wish to press against
Him. But their success in this direction is not very
great ; possibly Pilate knew something of the work
of Jesus already. In any case, the Governor soon
ascertains the spiritual character of the Kingdom
Jesus claims (John i8 36 ), and satisfies himself that
the Roman power has nothing to fear from the
prisoner now at the bar. Mark makes it clear in
1 5 10 that Pilate has correctly gauged the situation.
The account in this chapter regarding Barabbas
does not bring out the position of affairs very

295

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

distinctly. We prefer St. Matthew's narrative
(27 15fi> ), who, writing for Jews, would be careful
to describe the situation with much accuracy in
details. It is Pilate (who thus hopes to secure the
discharge of Jesus) who makes appeal to them to
choose Him as the prisoner commonly released at
the feast of the Passover. But this attempt is quite
unsuccessful. The other Evangelists all give fuller
particulars of the efforts the Governor made to save
Jesus ; possibly St. Mark, writing for Romans, had no
desire to dwell upon this aspect. He does not
punctuate the declarations of the Governor of the
innocency of the prisoner. In this account, Pilate
only once calls out to the mob, " What evil hath he
done?" Nor does St. Mark paint him as so
utterly weak and impotent as he appears in the other
records ; there is very little in this narrative in-
consistent with the dignity of a Roman Governor,
so far as Pilate's conduct is concerned. The attitude
of Jesus before him is generally the same as that
which He adopted before the Sanhedrin. He
remains silent, when He knows words are of no avail.
He speaks without hesitation when His claims and
office are in question. It would be true to say that
His bearing before Pilate appears to have impressed
the latter, and this possibly explains to some extent
why he strives so earnestly to save Jesus. The
crowd, however, is out for blood ; it is packed with
the minions of the priests and scribes, who prompt
them to call for Barabbas : " And so Pilate, willing
to content the people, released Barabbas unto them,
and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to
be crucified." Nothing can rescue the reputa-
tion of the Roman Governor from the obloquy

296

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

consequent upon this prostitution of his high office
to the perpetration of an ignoble act. For him there
was but one duty to save a prisoner whom he knew
to be innocent. It was to secure that possibility
that the power of life and death had been taken
from the Sanhedrin. He failed in the greatest
hour of his life ; but it is fair to say he probably
did not know, neither did he understand. Jesus re-
mained calm and dignified throughout all this trying
time, when, in literal fulfilment of prophecy His
own and others He was being handed over to the
Gentiles. No craving for His life, no urging of
His innocence, no beseeching that the Roman
power may be used for His protection, are ever
made. He alone passes through all these pro-
ceedings without a stain on His honour ; and yet
He was the prisoner found worthy of death.

Not an hour of respite is given to Him. As soon
as Pilate gave permission, He is taken away to be
crucified. We need not dwell upon the indignities
to which He is subjected. We are only amazed
that the Son of God could bear so patiently the
buffoonery of the soldiers and the mob. Yet,
perhaps, they may be pardoned. What was He but
an ordinary prisoner to them ? His own ecclesiastical
leaders had secured His condemnation. When the
mob had satisfied their craving for the ridiculous,
soon His cross is laid upon Him, and He proceeds
upon His via dolorosa. Two incidents occur on
this journey ; or, to be exact, one of them happens
shortly after it is begun, the other just at its close.
As a carpenter in the village of Nazareth, Jesus
would be quite accustomed to handle and carry
rough planks of wood, and although three years

297

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

have passed since He was engaged in that work,
yet we would expect some traces of His previous
training and experience still to remain. It is not so.
It was customary for the person condemned to
crucifixion to carry his own cross to the place of
execution. And so the rough slabs of wood are
laid upon the shoulders of Jesus; but soon they
prove too heavy for Him, and He sinks down under
their weight, and Simon, a Cyrenian, is compelled to
carry the cross instead. Now, how shall we account
for this extreme physical weakness on the part of
our Lord ? Is it due in any way to that extreme
anguish we found Him enduring in the Garden ?
However He suffered there, up to this point He
has borne Himself with great courage in public,
and some may be disappointed that He breaks
down now. Has the near approach of death taken
all the fortitude from Him ? We refuse to believe
that is the proper explanation, and we shall now
indicate a reason for saying so. Does this incident
not rather suggest that physically Jesus was not
very robust ? We find on one occasion He is
wearied with His journey (John 4 6 ), and He rests
Himself while His disciples, physically stronger men
apparently, go into the village -to secure food.
Yet He and His companions all seem to have been
young men, about the same age, and we would have
expected Him to be as vigorous as any of the others.
We know also that it was a matter of astonishment
that Jesus expired upon the cross so quickly ; even
Pilate can hardly believe He is dead, when Joseph
seeks His body (Mark I5 44 ). Writers tell us that
sometimes the victims of the cross lingered on for
several days in agony, until the body, wasted through

298

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

want of food, became utterly exhausted. Jesus
expired in a few hours. Nature could struggle no
longer ; but she may have been handicapped right
from the beginning by a comparatively weak
physical constitution. This, too, if it were so,
would help to explain, if explanation were necessary,
the great sympathy Jesus ever showed towards
those who were in bodily infirmity and distress.
Does human life show anything more common than
constitutional weakness and suffering? We must
remember Jesus was tried in all points as we are.

The other incident happened apparently when
the procession had arrived at Golgotha, and when
they were about to fasten Him to the cross. It was
customary to provide a cordial of " wine mingled
with myrrh " (Mark I5 23 ) for criminals who were
about to suffer crucifixion a band of charitably
disposed women in Jerusalem took this kind office
on themselves. In the corresponding passage in
Matthew he states: "They gave him vinegar to
drink mingled with gall " (27 34 ). As myrrh is
bitter, we presume that it represents the " gall "
of the latter passage, and are justified in concluding
St. Mark's statement, resting on the word of St. Peter,
who, we think, would be a close observer of all
that took place, is to be relied upon. The question
is, What effect was intended to be produced by the
drink ? No doubt it was designed in some way to
relieve the sufferings of the victim. Mr. Cromarty
Smith in the article " Myrrh " (Hastings' D.C. and G.)
says it was intended as an anodyne. This view is
evidently shared by Prof. David Smith, who, in an
article on the " Crucifixion " (Hastings' D.C. and G.),
says this draught was given " in order to deaden

299

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

their sensibility." Now the singular thing is,
that the action of myrrh seems to be stimulating
and not enervating. It is open for us to believe,
and from the action of myrrh especially so, that
the cordial was given to act as a sort of stimulant,
so that the victim might be strengthened at the
beginning of the ordeal, when the experience of
pain would be keenest. Presently bodily weakness
and anguish would themselves act as an anodyne ;
for human nature will only bear these up to a
point, after which there is the relief of unconscious-
ness. But whatever was the purpose of the draught,
Jesus refuses to partake of it. He is strong enough
in heart to face the great ordeal without any
artificial help, whether stimulant or depressant.
Prof. David Smith in the article referred to above
asks : " What was the reason for rejecting it ?
It was not that the endurance of physical pain was
necessary to the efficacy of His sacrificial death ;
nor was it merely that He had a sentimental repug-
nance to the idea of dying in a state of stupefaction.
It was rather that He was bent on doing to the
last the work which had been given Him to do."
This work, in the case in point, being suffering
unto death, it is questionable whether the latter
part of Prof. Smith's statement does not contradict
the earlier. However that may be, it was designed
that Jesus should " by the grace of God taste death
for every man " (Heb. 2 9 ), and He was to be made
" perfect through suffering " (Heb. 2 10 ). Our Lord
no doubt realised this, and seeing the Father had
not removed the cup from Him, He would drink
it to the bitterest dregs, and not avoid one drop
by any device. We discover here, again, the great

300

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS

moral and spiritual power of Jesus. If, perhaps,
we concede He was weak in body, we are satisfied
He was strong in soul, and steadfastly determined
in His obedience to the will of God.

For six hours, from the third to the ninth hour,
or from nine o'clock in the morning until three in
the afternoon, the tragedy is carried on upon the
hill of Calvary. We need not enter into those
details that the Evangelist supplies; suffice it to
say that Jesus was submitted to mocking and
ridicule, but He had never a word to say in reply.
A pall of darkness, St. Mark tells us, descended upon
the earth at the sixth hour and remained until the
ninth. What thoughts came into the minds of
those standing round the cross we can hardly
imagine ; we know how awful and unnerving such
an experience was likely to be, and we can well
believe there would be much searching of heart.
At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
" Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani " the opening words
of Psalm 22. A despairing cry some may say, yet
Menzies in his beautiful note on chap. i^ 33ff - suggests
that Jesus may have been thinking of some of the
magnificent and inspiring sentences of this psalm :
"he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction
of the afflicted " ; " they shall praise the Lord that
seek him: your heart shall ever live"; "All the
ends of the world shall remember and turn unto
the Lord : and all the kindreds of the nations shall
worship before thee." We have, however, already
remarked on the triumphant close of this psalm.
This cry which rang out through the darkness, in one
way may be regarded as the most desolating, heart-
stricken call of agony the world has ever heard

301

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

there may lie beneath it depths which the human
mind can never fathom ; but in another view of it,
it was a shout of victory, marking the height of
Divine love and compassion, and bringing to a
sinful world assurance of an adequate atonement.
It is but the one utterance that Jesus makes on the
cross according to both Mark and Matthew, and
as we believe Peter had mingled with the crowd
which surrounded the scene of the crucifixion, we
may be sure never to his dying day would he forget
these words. Another loud cry of physical suffering,
or holy horror because He is bearing the sin of the
world, breaks forth from Jesus, and then all is still.
Presently the darkness begins to dissolve, and when
men gaze upon the centre of the three crosses the
peace and majesty of death are there.

" Mourn, mourn, ye afflicted children,

Mourn in solemn strains ;
Your sanguine hopes of liberty give o'er,
Your hero, friend and father is no more."

302

CHAPTER XIV

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

ONE of the very extraordinary things about the
narrative relating to the crucifixion of Jesus, is that
the disciples practically disappear from the story
from the apprehension of Jesus in the Garden until
He is raised from the dead.- That two of them-
Peter and John lingered on in the background we
do not overlook ; indeed, we believe they were
companions and close observers throughout the trial
and execution of Jesus, but they did not in any
way make their presence obtrusive ; possibly they
were just as much afraid as the others, and so it
would be quite true of them also " they all forsook
him and fled" (Mark I4 50 ). We would desire
very greatly to ascertain what was passing in their
minds now respecting Christ and His Kingdom;
but we are left to inference and conjecture,
and, as far as the Earliest Gospel is concerned,
the ground we have to go upon is not very extensive.
The fact that they, at this time, so completely
disappear from the story is itself significant. We
may conclude that for the moment what Jesus
had already feared, and what He had by His teach-
ing and works endeavoured to provide against, had
actually happened: their faith had not been able

33

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to withstand the shock of His death. There can
be little doubt that now they looked upon their
cause as lost ; calamity had fallen upon the Kingdom
for which they had hoped and laboured. In the
tragedy of Calvary they recognised irretrievable
ruin to all their schemes, and the hopes they had
cherished had perished in the blackness of those
hours of mysterious darkness which they would
never forget. The reality of all these experiences
with which we have been dealing is faithfully
reflected in the attitude of the disciples. They
had clung to Jesus so much during the past years ;
they had been entirely dependent upon Him ;
and now He was gone their stay and support, the
very foundation upon which everything depended,
was swept away, and there appeared nothing upon
which they could lay firm hold. Even though we
assume they had, more or less, imbibed the recent
Messianic teaching of their Master, yet now that
He had been put to death they did not see how the
Kingdom which He had promised could be realised.
It is very significant that some of them about this
time appear to have returned to their old occupations.
" Simon Peter saith . . . I go a fishing " (John 2i 3 ).
It is true this action appears to have taken place
after some assurance had been given them of the
resurrection of Jesus, but it is the only passage
we can recall that throws some light upon the
actual condition of the disciples after the crucifixion.
They were ready to go back to their old employment.
We may therefore assume they no longer hoped
for a Kingdom, or expected anything further to
come out of the movement in which they had been
recently engaged. Of .course some interpret the

304

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

words " I go a fishing " as an intention merely to
take up temporary work to provide for their im-
mediate necessities. But the same means were
available now that had supplied them in the past.
In any case, it does not seem unfair to suggest that
this action on the part of Peter and others indicated
that they had abandoned all thoughts, in the mean-
time, of carrying on the particular work of Jesus.
His resurrection was so recent, His appearance so
fleeting, and His disappearance so mysterious, that
it is likely they were not yet quite satisfied in their
minds regarding Him.

Perhaps we shall never be able to discover what
the followers of our Lord actually thought of Him
during the days He lay in the grave. That they
were filled with doubts and misgivings we may be
perfectly certain ; that any of them thought Him
an impostor is utterly improbable. They may have
forgotten at this juncture the doctrines He had
taught; the influence of the life He had lived
would not so easily pass away. And we therefore
think it quite incredible that any of those who had
companied with Him during His public ministry
could look upon Him as a deceiver. We can-
suppose it possible, although it was perhaps not very
probable, that some of them might come to the
conclusion that He was self-deceived, that He really
had fancied Himself the Messiah, but in this He
was somehow mistaken, as His death revealed. And
further than that we can hardly conceive their
doubts to have gone. We judge from Luke 24 21
that their great disappointment was that the
Messianic Kingdom had not been established before
His departure. Perhaps the minds of the disciples

305 20

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

were just overborne with a wave of incredulity
the effect of His death. That is to say, they still
believed in Him, but their mental powers had,
for the time, been utterly shattered, so that they
could not recall His teaching, and in the circum-
stances it seemed useless for them to do so. It
appeared hard for them to argue a theory against
the fact of death.

But all this shows us that those were critical
days for the Kingdom. Humanly speaking, every-
thing depended, at this juncture, on the faith of
the disciples, and apparently it had failed. If they
had permanently abandoned their mission and gone
back to their former employment, then it hardly
seems possible that the spiritual work could have
been carried on. Only a few had been trained for
this labour ; a smaller number still had witnessed
some of the glorious mysteries that had been withheld
from the rest. If these had utterly failed, who was
left to take up the work for which Jesus had lived
and died ? We can see here a reason why He had
been so assiduous in instructing them as to the
suffering that awaited Him, and yet that He should
rise triumphant over death and the grave. He
knew how severely their faith would be tried in
these dark days of sorrow and bereavement, and
but that these days were brief, the faith of the elect
and chosen ones might not have withstood disaster.
This was the time of which Jesus had spoken long
ago (n 18fi -), when He, as the bridegroom, should
be taken from them, and they should fast. We can
imagine that the disciples remained pretty much in
secret at this period, because they realised that
possibly the life of some of them was in peril. It is

306

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

not improbable that they lived in somewhat close
seclusion ' during the festivities of the Passover
season, mourning for their absent Lord. In the
bitterness of their grief their souls abhorred food,
and their hearts were weighed down with a sorrow
greater than some of them could bear. What
was Peter, for instance, thinking during these sad,
sad days ? He could only remember, perhaps, the
look of his Master ; and it is significant that he at
this time remained closely associated with the other
disciples. So far as they were concerned, these
were drab days for them all; but again, as often
happens in other circumstances, the blackness is
relieved by a beam of light that breaks into the
gloom. The ministry of the women receives at this
stage distinct prominence. There is no indication
that their faith is stronger, or that their apprehension
is keener, than that of the men, but their love will
not be quenched even by death itself. It is clearly
a dead Christ whom they seek when they go to the
sepulchre, otherwise they would not have obtained
the spices; but love prompts them to this kind act.
Possibly it was more customary for such offices to
be discharged by women than by men, and they were
evidently unaware of the spices wherewith Joseph
of Arimathsea and Nicodemus had embalmed the
body of their Lord. The loyal attachment of these
women who had followed Him from Galilee right
up to the very last hour, is something that we can
dwell upon with satisfaction. The whole company
of the followers of Jesus for some days had now
been walking in the Valley of the Shadow, and had
" heard doleful voices, and rushings to and fro " ;
but the shadows were about to lift and the gloom

307

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to disappear for ever. Indescribably severe" had
been their trial; in the end they had not utterly
failed. These days passed all too slowly, and then
the sun rose on the resurrection morn.

Not so very long ago we had the rather infrequent
opportunity of observing what was almost a total
eclipse of the sun. It was exceedingly interesting
in the early summer morning to watch the centre
of our system attaining to his wonted splendour,
then a dense shadow passed over his face, for a
short time obscuring his glory, diminishing his light,
and to an extent shutting off his heat. Soon the
shadow moved away, and the brightness of the
sun asserted itself again the weird and somewhat
unfamiliar experience had passed. It seems an
appropriate illustration of the life of Jesus He had
attained to maximum splendour on the Mount of
Transfiguration. Then the dense shadow of suffer-
ing and death hid His glory from men's sight for
a time ; but the interposition of the shadow was
only brief. Presently it passed away, and the
exceeding brightness of Jesus in His resurrection
glory was to be seen with undiminished, nay, with
increased grandeur and impressiveness. And the
eyes of countless thousands have through the ages
since turned with hopefulness to the rising of this
Sun, which, according to promise, shall never set.

Every student in approaching a consideration of
the very important subject of the resurrection of
Jesus must be conscious of its extreme difficulty.
There is, of course, the easy method, that was
resorted to by many in the past generations, of
saying, " It is recorded in the Bible, and we must
accept it." That has a good deal to commend it,

308

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

because it has this for its underlying presumption-
that the men who wrote the Bible, and particularly
(as we are dealing with a book in the New Testa-
ment), that the men who contributed to this volume,
were as anxious, at least, to reveal and preserve
the truth as we are to discover it. Still, there are
many with whom this argument, if we may use
that word, would have no force whatever. They
recognise no particular authority in the word of
Scripture, and demand that every statement in it
must stand upon its own merits. And this is a
demand that cannot be denied them. There can
be no doubt that if Scripture does not appeal to
us by its reasonableness, consistency and general
trustworthiness, it must presently cease to have
any recognised authority among thinking men.
We recollect several years ago reading a speech of a
former Lord Salisbury, in which he stated that the
doctrine of the resurrection was the " bulwark " of
Christianity. In a sense that is correct, although
it is very doubtful whether, if the enemy gained
the bulwark, he would at the same time secure the
citadel also. In the days of the old " wooden walls "
many an enemy scaled over the sides and even
on to the deck of some of our ships, but they got
no further. If the bulwark should be taken, in
this case the extraordinary and wonderful resur-
rection of Jesus if this could be proven untrust-
worthy, the citadel the life and glorious work He
accomplished still remains. Nevertheless, the im-
portance of the story of the resurrection cannot
be denied, and possibly there are many people in
Christendom fully prepared to make it the first and
last line of defence. They are ready to marshal all

309

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

*

their forces, and confront the whole power of the
enemy on this one point. Paul takes up that
attitude in I Cor. i5 12ff - We must recognise that
while Christological glory reaches its summit on
the Mount of Transfiguration, it depends upon the
attestation of the resurrection of Jesus as a confirma-
tion of the possibility and reality of the experience.
It is in its attesting power that the essence of the
resurrection of Jesus really lies. In certain Eastern
buildings the corner-stone was employed in some-
what the same way as we employ the keystone of
an arch to strengthen and consolidate the building ;
the resurrection of Jesus is, in this sense, the chief
corner-stone of our Christological teaching. It
gives both foundation and binding force to the
whole structure, and without it the safety of the
erection would be endangered. We must, there-
fore, be alive to the full importance of establishing
it as a fact.

So far as St. Mark's Gospel is concerned, the
evidence is not cumbersome, nor difficult to examine.
If we believe the Gospel finished at verse 8, chapter
1 6, then it consists of the evidence of three women,
who had gone together, early on the first day of the
week, to anoint the body of Jesus with sweet spices,
and had found the sepulchre empty save for an
angel sitting there, who said : " Ye seek Jesus of
Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is
not here : behold the place where they laid him "
(i6 6 ). But we do not feel that we are bound to
accept the eighth verse as closing the Gospel.
The question is one, of course, for textual criticism,
and a good deal can be urged on both sides. It
cannot be denied that to end this book with the

310

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

words " for they were afraid " is very unnatural.
There is no doubt that the present ending in
A.V. was in circulation very early, and whether
it is the work of St. Mark himself or some other
equally early writer, it contains material which is
all corroborated elsewhere, so far as the resurrection
is particularly concerned. This subject has been
much debated, and there is quite a mass of litera-
ture advocating the various views ; but we cannot,
of course, enter fully into the discussion of these.
If we obtain from other reliable sources sufficient
confirmation of the story as told by the women in
Mark i6 1 ~ s , it ought to justify our position.

I. Let us, however, first of all, see if we can
assure ourselves that the three women witnesses
were such as can be regarded as reliable and trust-
worthy. Mary of Magdala, whom Jesus had restored
of a sore affliction, and who out of gratitude had
been one of His followers ever since ; Mary the
mother of James, who also had more than once,
probably, come into contact with our Lord during
His ministry in Galilee, from which place she had
followed Him ; and Salome, the mother of Zebedee's
children, who had sought preferment for her sons
in the Kingdom she believed Jesus was about to
establish these were all certainly sympathisers
with our Lord, but so far as their history is known,
there is nothing whatever to indicate they were
persons likely to invent the tale of an empty sepulchre,
or, indeed, that they were capable of doing so. It
is to be observed their own testimony only amounts
to that ; the statement of the young man at the
sepulchre goes much further. They make no
profession of having on this occasion seen Jesus;

3"

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

they receive a message for the disciples, which in their
fear and amazement they forget to deliver. Now,
there is a naturalness about this story thus far that
cannot be disputed. These women had come hoping
somehow to gain access to the remains of their
beloved Master, but the very fact that they brought
spices wherewith to anoint His body, shows they
were not expecting an open sepulchre and an
empty tomb ; and it would be a safe. guess to say
that ninety-nine women out of every hundred
would have been affected just as they were filled
with an unspeakable terror because of such an
unexpected experience. It is utterly impossible to
believe these three women could conspire to concoct
such a story, and expect it to be believed, seeing
what had happened was the very last thing they
had looked for themselves. Is their evidence to be
regarded as equivalent to that of but one eye-
witness ? Be it so, but with the understanding that
a threefold cord is not easily broken. The words
spoken by the young man (i6 6> 7 ) are confirmed by
the words of Jesus (i4 28 ), "But after I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee " uttered when
none of these women was present, and not likely
to be told them by any of the disciples, who appear
to have attached no importance to this promise of
a speedy resurrection. Of all the company of His
followers, none would be so anxious, and so in-
terested, in what was now taking place as Peter.
It is but reasonable to suppose he had been grieving
over his own fall since the time of his denial. Would
he ever forget, then, this message which had
been sent to him "Go your way, tell His dis-
ciples and Peter " ? Is it likely he would not have

312

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

investigated, to the very best of his ability, the accur-
acy of the women's statements, seeing his peace of
mind was largely depending upon what they had to
tell ? He undoubtedly would have made himself
certain of the reliability of this special mention, and
must have treasured it throughout all his life.

2. The next stage in our evidence is that Jesus has
been actually seen ; but for this we must enter the
disputed appendix to the Gospel. The ninth verse
is extremely awkward, as we must supply a subject
to ai/curra?; no doubt Jesus is meant, as this word
could not have reference to any other person. We
do not share the objection which some critics have
against the second mention of Mary Magdalene in
this verse, because fresh information is being
supplied " put of whom he had cast seven devils."
If this paragraph was added by Mark himself, as
Salmon appears to think in chapter ix. of his Intro-
duction to the New Testament, and which is not
inconsistent with his position in the last paragraph of
The Human Element in the Gospels, it might possibly
have been written some time later than the
former part of the Gospel, and he may have dis-
covered this information regarding Mary Magdalene
in the interval. In any case, the intention manifestly
from verse 9 onwards is to indicate instances of the
actual appearance of Jesus : And (i) He appeared to
Mary as stated^ and as is confirmed by John 20.
It is not needful to suppose there is any inconsistency
in the stories as told by Mark and John regarding
this appearance. It is probable they are dealing
with the same occurrence ; but while the other Mary
and -Salome may have departed speedily from the
sepulchre, Mary Magdalene possibly lingered on, and

313

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

was rewarded with a sight of the Lord Himself.

(2) Next He appears in another form to two of them.
This no doubt refers to the account in Luke 24 13ff -,
but has much less detail; indeed, there is a possible
discrepancy between our thirteenth verse and
Luke 24 33 34 . The point, however, is well estab-
lished that this was another fresh appearance.

(3) Lastly, in this Gospel, He appears to the eleven
as recorded in Luke 24 33ff - And, in this instance
again, practically no particulars are forthcoming.
There is the same scantiness of information found in
the appendix to this Gospel that we discovered in
its introduction, and this circumstance certainly
favours the Marcan authorship. Moreover, it is
necessary to remember that, if we accept Harnack's
most recent view as to its date, we must put it some

'time before A.D. 60, so that it would not be very far
removed from the incidents recorded in it. It is
certainly possible the conclusion (verses 9-20) was
later than the preceding part of the work ; but that
does not actually affect the testimony of the passage,
as this is also found in St. Luke, which Harnack puts
at A.D. 60. The details in the first part of I6 1 ' 8 we
may believe were supplied by St. Peter, who was in
close touch with all that was taking place. It is not
impossible that St. Matthew's account is at least
revised, and corrected, by information obtained
through his own personal observations and experi-
ences. St. Luke seems to have tapped several in-
dependent sources in the composition of this part
of his Gospel. We know St. John's testimony is
that of an eyewitness. All these records agree in
supporting the main portion of the story in St. Mark,
that Jesus rose again early on the morning of the third

3H

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

day. St. Paul undoubtedly went most thoroughly
into this whole matter, and gives the result of his
investigations in I Cor. 15, which may be taken as a
carefully thought-out statement of the position at
about A.D. 57. But this Apostle really asserts his
belief in the resurrection of Jesus in practically every
Epistle. In I Thess., the earliest, and put by Salmon
in his Introduction (p. 363) at about A.D. 52, he
writes that the Thessalonian Christians had not only
turned from idols " to serve the living God," but,
" to wait for his Son from heaven whom he raised
from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from
the wrath to come." This is within twenty years
of the event itself. As St. Mark's Gospel was prob-
ably written for Romans, we ought to remember
that, about the same time as it was written, Paul was
sending to them an Epistle not only declaring his
belief in the resurrection of Jesus, but showing the
Christological importance it possessed. ... " Con-
cerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh ;
and declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec-
tion from the dead" (Rom. I 3f *). Thus there is
complete corroboration throughout the New Testa-
ment of the statements which we find in the
concluding chapter of St. Mark respecting the
resurrection of Jesus. This is a most formidable
body of evidence, taking us back to a very early
date, and it will be difficult to set it aside. Let us
see how it is proposed to do that.

I. There is, first of all, the extreme position taken
up by the modern representatives of the Sadducees,
which affirms that a physical resurrection in any

315

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

form is an improbability, and the story of the rising
again of Jesus on the third day is therefore in-
credible. Well, we fall back upon the very good
maxim, Neganti incumbit probatio. We have a
right to demand some proof in support of this
denial ; but all that is forthcoming appears to be the
phrase, Id non potest. There is no attempt made
to overthrow or discredit the evidence ; and there
hardly seems any ground as a common basis for
discussion. When a person simply says of such a
fact as the resurrection that " it cannot be," that
practically is an end to all argument. It is an
extremely unreasonable attitude, but not a few
people appear to think that because we do not know
how a thing is possible, it is therefore impossible.
We do not know how the soul which is spiritual,
affects the body which is material, but we are
assured it does so ; we have sufficient evidence of the
fact. There is likewise abundant evidence of this
other fact, but it is simply ignored by materially
minded people, who calmly affirm that the dead
rise not. We have, however, dealt with this point
briefly in our preliminary remarks concerning
miracles, and do not further enlarge upon it here. It
is manifestly an indefensible position to adopt, for
the evidence must be taken into consideration.

2. Seeing the force of this contention, there are
critics who, possessed by the same ideas of the
impossibility of the physical resurrection, yet feel it
necessary to take up a more moderate attitude, or at
least realise they must give some thought to the
accounts in the New Testament, of the general
belief in the rising of Jesus of Nazareth from the
dead. Their method is to discredit the evidence,

316

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

and this on two grounds: (i) it was a deliberate
concoction by a post-apostolic generation ; or (2) it
is due to the imagination of the disciples, who were
themselves deceived. These points have been dis-
cussed and answered by Christian apologists time
and again. Perhaps the existence of the Christian
Church itself is the best answer to give to the first.
There can be no doubt that the doctrine of the
resurrection of Jesus is one of its foundation-stones.
Would, it have withstood the storms of dreadful
persecutions, the afflictions and sorrows that history
shows fell upon the early Christians on account of
their faith ; could the infant Church have grappled
with, and to such a considerable extent overcome,
the heathen world, if it had rested upon a foundation
which was false ? The men who invented such a
story as this, must have had great faith in their
powers to deceive the people, not only of that time,
but of subsequent generations. Men were no more
likely to believe such a tale in the first century than
they are in the twentieth. There must also have
been a considerable number of people in the plot,
for the theme pervades the whole New Testament.
The probabilities, therefore, of such a scheme mis-
carrying were very great obviously there was much
danger that some one would betray the secret. As
the Jewish leaders were considerably interested in
this subject, it is strange that they tamely submitted
to such a system of misrepresentation, so far as we
can gather, without a protest. It is equally beyond
our understanding that the early leaders of the
Church, who must have known the facts, were
ready to submit to suffering, and even death, rather
than deny that Jesus was alive again. What interest

317

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

was to be served by setting such a story afoot ?
Hatred of Judaism, perhaps ! But Judaism received
its death-blow in A.D. 70. Why need we multiply
objections ? The disciples and early leaders of the
Church, so far as we can know anything of them,
were men morally, spiritually, and intellectually
incapable of such dupficity. Their whole training,
and subsequently their whole teaching, were in
entire opposition to such an invention. One thing
the Gospel narrative makes exceedingly plain, viz.
that they themselves shared in the common belief
that a physical resurrection was not possible, until
the rising of Jesus shattered their unbelief for ever.
3. Feeling the force of the objection that, ethically,
the disciples were incapable of deceiving others,
there are certain objectors prepared to take up the
position that they were themselves deceived. They
were led to expect a resurrection of Jesus, and the
thing that they looked for actually happened. Well,
admitted it is often true that we see what we look
for, yet, surely, it cannot be denied that the disciples
did not look for the resurrection of their Master.
They certainly had been prepared to expect it.
By whom ? Jesus. If He thus taught them to
eagerly await that which was never intended to
take place, He was morally responsible, and the
duplicity is transferred from them to Him. The
position is not helped by doing so. We have already
observed that we have absolutely no reason for
thinking these early leaders were uncritical, gullible
men. Their writings show the very reverse. The
atmosphere of Matt. 28 17 , Luke 24, John 2O 24ff -
shows they were extremely critical, and very difficult
to convince on the point at issue.

318

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

4. It may possibly be suggested that the testimony
of the various New Testament writers respecting
the resurrection of Jesus is not harmonious, that
there are discrepancies and disagreements. We
doubt if there be any real disagreements in detail,
but that there are differences in the various ac-
counts cannot be denied. This, of course, goes to
strengthen, not to weaken, the evidence. If they
had been found all telling the same story, in the same
way, there would have been strong suspicion of
collusion ; but small differences assure us of in-
dependence and of private research and inquiry.
The disagreements of witnesses are often very
important, providing they agree on the main story,
as attesting independence of judgment. Now,
whatever differences there may be among the writers
in their record of details respecting the resurrec-
tion of Jesus, there is absolute agreement as to the
fact itself.

5. Although it is drawing us somewhat away from
our main purpose, we feel we ought to mention
that the New Testament does not give any precise
information as to the real character of the resur-
rection body. The words " physical resurrection "
which we have used once or twice already perhaps
require some qualification. In St. Mark i6 12 we
read : " After that he appeared in another form,"
etc. We think these words are most significant.
Menzies simply says : " On the ' other form ' we
compare, of course, the narrative of the Trans-
figuration (9 2 )." Yes, truly ; but is there not more
involved than that ? Do not the words " in another
form " imply that His manifestation was different
to these two disciples from what it had been to

319

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Mary Magdalene ? Swete takes up this point in his
note on the words, which he says " suggest a trans-
formation analogous to that described in 9 2 ; but the
account in Luke forbids this ; there was clearly
nothing in the Lord's appearance to distinguish
Him from any other wayfaring man. The words
must be explained as contrasting the Magdalene's
impression (verse 9) with that received by the two ;
to her He had seemed to be a KJ-n-ovpog ; to them He
appeared in the light of a avvoSonropos." It is
manifest, from nearly all the narratives, that some
change had taken place in the bodily appearance of
Jesus. He was the same, and yet not precisely the
same. There were times when He could be readily
recognised, and other times when He could not.
His body was no longer under the limitations of
time and place to which it had formerly been
subjected. The resurrection body was a spiritual
body (i Cor. I5 44 ), and it essentially differed in
some way from the former natural body, but how
we cannot tell ; yet the difference was not such as
to destroy continuity, individuality, or recognis-
ability.

6. The last point we need urge in support of
the resurrection of Jesus is, that it is inconceivable
that the Jews would have missed the opportunity of
proving the disciples were wrong in their declaration
of this fact, if they had been in a position to do so.
The best reply they had, their clearest justification
for the crucifixion of Jesus, was the sealed tomb of
Joseph of Arimathaea. We may be sure that if they
could have pointed to an unbroken seal, or have
shown the remains of Jesus still resting in His rocky
sepulchre, they would have done so. They did not,

320

WANING AND WAXING FAITH

we are satisfied, because they could not. Instead,
they endeavoured to start a tale of theft on the part
of the disciples (Matt. 28 llff -), the self-evident im-
probability and falseness of which prevented it from
taking hold of the public mind.

We believe the evidence for the resurrection of our
Lord, carefully tested and fairly considered, will be
found absolutely reliable. That as a fact it baffles
our powers to explain cannot be denied; but the
evidence is there, and we must either accept it or
reject it. We do not close our eyes to the difficul-
ties of acceptance; but are those of rejection any
easier ? They involve nothing less than a contra-
diction of the whole Scriptural position, and in the
end must lead to the moral and spiritual dethrone-
ment of Jesus Christ. Faith, however, guides us
here when sight cannot point the way, and in Jesus
of Nazareth we discover the conqueror of death and
the grave. In spirit, we go to " see the place where
the Lord lay," and gaze upon the mystery of the
ages Death and Life; and the glorious light of
inspiration breaks in upon our souls, for the all-
powerful hath " swallowed up death in victory "
(Isa. 25 8 ).

321 21

CHAPTER XV

" GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD "

THE Gospel according to St. Mark may be likened
to a piece of music in which, the composer, after
asserting the main theme, often leaves it and takes up
other phrases, some of which being in the minor mode
are depressing and sorrowful ; but still the original
theme is asserted at times, and then, at last, it comes
out with impressive distinctness as the composition
draws to a close. The dominating theme of the
Gospel is the power of Jesus, and the keynote is
the Divine Sonship : these appear in the very first
paragraphs. They are sometimes lost sight of,
to reappear again as circumstances seem to require
their emphasis. There are many modulations into the
minor in the references to suffering and death, but
the main theme comes out grand and bright in the
resurrection of our Lord ; and in this fact, and in
the giving of the commission to the disciples, the
keynote is firmly reasserted again ere the Gospel
draws to a close. It is true the affirmation of power
is not so prominent here as in the corresponding
passage in St. Matthew ; but such difference as there
may be in this respect is more apparent than real ;
it is in fact only verbal. Still, it is interesting to
notice the variation between the apostolic com-
mission as found in Matthew and as it is discovered in

322

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD"

St. Mark. In the former it relates only to preaching
and teaching, and although it is prefaced by the
words, " All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth," yet the connection shows that spiritual
power is what is meant. St. Mark lacks the preface
just mentioned ; and the commission is not only to
preach, teach, and baptise, but as signs of their being
His successors the disciples were authorised to carry
on His work of healing, and enjoy a measure of
immunity themselves from certain accidents of a
poisonous nature. Their, power, however, was to be
in Him ; the charm, if we may use that expression,
that was to be used in removing sickness was the
words, " In the name of Jesus." This is Mark's
equivalent for Matthew's " All power is given
unto," etc. Possibly the form of the commission
in St. Mark is older than that in St. Matthew,
because it seems likely to have been written at a time
when the physical power of Jesus was fresh in the
minds of His followers, and when it was understood
that they, in some measure, were to possess the
same power. We find a striking resemblance be-
tween the close of the Earliest Gospel and that of
the latest in respect to these signs ; there being this
difference, however that in Mark the full effect
of their attestation of the heavenly origin and
Divinity of Christ is not asserted as in St. John's
Gospel. We think, also, St. Mark's form is earlier
than St. Matthew's, because of the purer spiritual
conception of the power in the latter Gospel.
Evidently it is now realised that in this direction
the Kingdom and power and glory of Christ were
to be found. The form as it is discovered in
St. Mark would certainly appeal mqre to a Roman

3 2 3

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

reader. He would desire some tangible evidence
of this supposed omnipotence, so that in this
promise to perform miracles, we may say there is
more in St. Mark's commission than in St.Matthew's.
Of course, it was to be expected that when Jesus
had suffered and passed away, this power which He
possessed should go with Him. St. Mark is the only
Gospel writer who indicates that He thus endowed
His immediate followers, and his account is con-
firmed by subsequent incidents in the Acts. It is a
somewhat remarkable situation, if not one unparalleled
in religious history, which is here revealed. We
have already seen the impressive effect that was
produced by the miraculous works of Jesus ; we have
become aware also that this power was to some
extent delegated by our Lord to His disciples when
He sent them forth to teach and to preach ; and now
we learn that, although His presence is to be taken
from them, even though He has suffered the shock
of death, He still claims the power unabated and
undiminished ; and He bequeaths it as a legacy to
His Apostles. In the circumstances, we believe
they would feel that no greater assurance of His
Divinity than this could be given. Although He goes
away from them, His Lordship over them and their
acts, over disease and suffering, remained precisely
as it had been while He was with them. In these
days after the resurrection, they were beginning
more distinctly to understand Him and the nature
of His Kingdom. Equipped with this power they
might, therefore, do wonderful things, and the
universalism that they had claimed for the Messianic
Kingdom might, after all, be realised. They were
to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to

3H

" GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD "

every creature. The whole world was to be won
for Jesus of Nazareth. And so we find the future
mission of the disciples was to be precisely the same
as that which had occupied their Master. Their
supreme work was to teach and preach ; only in a
subsidiary way were they to regard themselves as
healers ; and all this work could only be carried on
through the power of His Name. The promise of
His spiritual presence to be with them during the
ages is also absent from St. Mark ; the idea, however,
is found in the words, " The Lord working with
them." The thought of the continual power and
presence of the Christ is left upon us by these closing
verses. But if He had this power, and if He thus
was present, it must have been because He was the
Son of God, the Messiah long promised to the world.
No human man could claim to bestow his powers
upon his disciples in the way that Jesus did. Now,
we discover that He has been right in His attitude
all along, that He had correctly interpreted the
Messianic role, and employed suitable means for
the establishment of Messiah's rule. It is a King-
dom that is spiritual, still it is real, and because of its
spiritual character He can be with them, and working
through them, until the latest ages. Their work
shall not fail, and the great dreams of the poets and
prophets shall all be realised. Immanuel is a sign ;
and, although Jesus departs, Immanuel remains.

The last picture of Christ that St. Mark places
before us is that of the ascension, in words beautifully
simple and plain: "So then after the Lord had
spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven,
and sat on the right hand of God." That is to say,
having finished the work that had been given Him

325

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to do, He went back to the glory with the Father
which He had before the foundation of the world
(John ly 31 -). Having humiliated Himself as a Son,
and been made perfect through suffering, He
received the place of supreme honour and glory.
St. Luke furnishes us with fuller details of the
ascension, but as a simple summary the words just
quoted cannot be surpassed. They leave room for
the imagination to work, certainly; but what can
human imagination do in a case of the kind ? It is
transparently evident that the writers of our
Gospel narratives believed Jesus went out and in
among His followers for a period after He arose
from the grave, and, when this period was finished,
they were convinced they saw Him ascend up into
the heavens. St. Mark is no doubt beholden to
St. Peter for the idea of sitting " on the right hand
of God." Jesus had stated to the High Priest that
He was the Messiah, and added, " and ye shall see
the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power "
(i4 62 ). This is the proper conclusion to the life
of Christ, as well as a fitting finish to the Gospel. A
life such as He had lived of perfect obedience, of
deepest humiliation must in the end be crowned
with a glorious exaltation. The darkness of the
valley is dispelled, at length, by the -brightness of
the Eternal Sunshine of heaven. Strange that
Jesus now took no farewell of His followers, such as
He had done in the upper room before He suffered.
He has but a few brief instructions to impart, a
promise to make, a commission to give, and then He
is received up into glory without " sadness of
farewell." The feeling left upon us, by all the
narratives, is the pervasive sense of His presence-

326

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD"

He is going away, yet His Spirit is remaining with
them, and by this they are to conquer the world.
St. Mark's Gospel commences with the words : " The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God,", and _it closes with a picture of the Lord
ordaining that His Gospel was to be preached to
every creature : and that after that He was received
up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
As the author started so he concludes, and in the
intervening chapters we find nothing discordant
with these most lofty Christological presentations.

CONCLUSION

We now approach the conclusion of our study.
It but remains for us to gather up the impressions
that we have received by the way, and from them
to form, if possible, a distinct picture or impression
of Jesus of Nazareth, as He is represented in this
Earliest Gospel. This is not by any means an easy
undertaking. Its difficulty will be realised when
we remind ourselves that even the Early Fathers
found it perplexing to estimate the worth of the
contribution St. Mark's Gospel gave to Christology.
When affixing the symbols of Ezekiel's four living
creatures to the four Gospels, in a quartette of
catalogues given by Early Fathers, St. Mark has a
different figure given each time. It is represented as
the eagle, the lion, the calf, and the man. This indi-
cates the varied opinions entertained respecting the
Gospel in ancient times. It is not possible to say
whether there would be perfect agreement now,
but, perhaps, many would be prepared to regard
it as the Gospel of Christ's humanity. When we

327

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

think of the great amount of work He did in helping
the distressed, diseased and down-trodden, we can
appreciate the appropriateness of this name and
idea. Yet, as we have already seen, His humanity
is not emphasised or prominently dwelt upon in
the book. A writer (Henry Burton) in the Expositor
(vol. ii., 1875) says : " In Mark we see the face of
the patient ox. It is Christ the servant ; going
about doing good ; bearing men's burdens ; walking
up and down the furrows of common life, carrying
a yoke that is self-imposed ; servant of all, whether
bound to the plough or bound to the altar " (p. 26).
Now, to show the diversity of opinion that may
arise, when reading over that passage we could
only think of its complete appropriateness to St.
Matthew's Gospel, and how that this author took
these very acts as a fulfilment of Isa. 53 4 : "Him-
self took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses."
Perhaps if we are to arrive at a proper conclusion,
we could not do better than cease to compare one
Gospel with another, but remind ourselves that
St. Mark's is the earliest, and fancy ourselves in a
position where we had it alone. What are the
outstanding characteristics in it which would in-
delibly fix themselves upon our minds ? Or to
put it differently, believing this Gospel was written
to Romans who had none other, what impression or
impressions would be left upon them after hearing
it read ? Probably about the time they would
receive it, or perhaps a little earlier, as we have
formerly stated, St. Paul's Epistle had already
arrived, in which a lofty view of the resurrected
Saviour was presented to them. After reading this
Gospel, we may be assured they would be satisfied

328

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD "

(i) that Jesus was a real man, who had lived and
acted like other men but a few years .before ; (2) that
He was a man of the warmest possible sympathy
and compassion for others, taking it as one of the
supreme objects of His earthly life to minister to
those in distress ; (3) that in His ministry He
revealed the possession of an extraordinary power,
whereby He was enabled to perform some wonderful
deeds; (4) that He might have. become the ruler
over His people, if He had chosen temporal sove-
reignty, and used His power to the furtherance of
that object ; (5) instead, He preferred suffering and
death, insisting that His Kingdom was spiritual ;
(6) that eventually His disciples were so impressed
by the manner of His life, by the power which He
exercised, that they believed Him to be the Messiah
of God ; (7) that although He was in the end put
to death, He rose again from the dead on the third
day, and was seen by several of His friends and by
all His disciples ; (8) that after a period of more
or less indefinite and extraordinary intercourse with
them, He was received up into heaven. All these
things, at the very least, the Romans would receive
from a study of this Gospel. They would also
know something about the circumstances under
which it had been produced, and would, we may
presume, be satisfied that the story told of Jesus
therein was reliable. They would learn from other
sources that this Gospel did not create Jesus of
Nazareth, and that His Messiahship was not a
dream of the writer. They would discover that
the Epistle addressed to them by St. Paul contained
the very same Christological teaching, and the one
document would be regarded as a corroboration of

329

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

the other. Now, if these are some of the effects
produced on the earliest readers, the material that
originated them is still found in the volume, and
the high Christ ological position taken up in it is
only enhanced by the writings of others who came
after. If we might gather the foregoing eight
points into a sentence, we would say this Gospel of
St. Mark shows us the Son of Man becoming the
Son of God, through a life of power which even
death could not weaken. It is, we believe, the
earliest distinct portrait the world possesses of
Jesus of Nazareth. As a summary of the Christology
of the Gospel, the following extract from Dr.
Moffatt's Theology of the Gospels (p. 12) is very
suggestive and helpful : " Mark's Gospel is the
story of Jesus as a supernatural figure, compelling
homage from the invisible world of demons, and
exercising the powers of divine forgiveness and
authority on earth as Son of God and Son of Man.
Mark, as Wellhausen observes, is not writing de vita
et moribus Jesu. He essays, indeed, to make His
personality vivid, but that personality has a Divine
vocation which supplies the controlling interest of
the story : Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In
this respect the Christology of Mark is not so distant
from the essential features of the Fourth Gospel."

But it is to the supernaturalness of the figure
that objection may be raised. The story as told,
in many aspects, undoubtedly transcends human ex-
perience, and is bound, therefore, to create doubts
in the mind of some students as to its genuineness.
Many persons will ask with varied purposes in view,
whether the portrait of the Christ painted in this
Gospel is a good, genuine, lifelike likeness, or

33

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD"

whether the material at the artist's disposal has not
been so wrought upon as to produce a good picture
rather than a faithful portrait ? We feel this
question would not be put if there were not in the
Gospel the presentation of Jesus as a " supernatural
figure," to keep to Dr. Moffatt's phrase. Well,
let us by a mental effort endeavour to remove the
supernatural out of the Gospel story, and what
have we left ? Practically nothing nothing that
is really intelligible. This Gospel is so steeped
in matter that transcends human experience, the
natural and supernatural are so intertwined, that
they cannot be separated without destroying the
work as a whole. And we cannot blind our eyes
to the naturalness with which the supernatural is
treated. It seems always the right thing for Jesus
to exercise extraordinary power, but nobody else
does so. As we have already discovered, He, in
this respect, as in practically every other, stands a
man apart. It is very strange that this should
be so, if there were not something inherent in Him
which was not possessed by any other person. If
He were not such a Person in fact, as is here described
in this Gospel, how are we to account for the
conception ? If the supernatural is a stumbling-
block to many to-day, it was no less so in the second
half of the first century. We find repeated emphasis
laid upon the want of understanding, upon the
crass unbelief of the disciples. The miracles are
as great a surprise to them as to anyone else ; the
death of Christ implied at first the complete
destruction of their hopes ; His resurrection utterly
amazed and confounded them by its unexpectedness.
The whole atmosphere is one of mental opposition

33 1

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

to the miraculous. Perhaps it is suggested that
these are but artistic touches to give a colouring
of reality to the narrative. Well, we are not so
credulous as to believe that these authors had such
highly developed powers as would enable them to
weave such a wonderful tale about a simple village
carpenter. Supposing Mark, the earliest of the
Gospel writers, had been able, and that his story
was really such a work of fiction, is it likely Matthew,
Luke, and John would have followed him ? It-
surely is a most gratuitous assumption to imagine
truth had so utterly forsaken them. Is there
anything whatever in their known history that would
lead us to suppose they were men of that stamp ?
The answer is emphatically, no. Are we to
believe that these men entered into a secret con-
spiracy to withhold the truth, and to produce a
fictitious tale of the Christ ? We are not disposed
to accept any such idea ; we do not believe a
conspiracy like this could have been secured and
maintained in the circumstances. Such a plot has
only a chance of succeeding if it is but the work
of one person, or at least, that a very few participate
in the secret. The story of Jesus was the common
heritage of all His followers. Was St. Paul in this
combine, and how was he secured to such an under-
taking ? Was there none among the followers of
Jesus in the quarter or half century after His death
who had respect for truth and honesty ? It is
impossible to suppose all Christianity was embraced
in a great secret confederacy to keep the truth
about Jesus from the world at this time. But ,if it
were, would the Jews have permitted that ? When
these Gospels began to appear and circulate, we

33 2

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD"

may be quite certain they would be studied by the
Jewish rulers the first opponents of Christianity;
and we may be equally assured that had there been
anything in them unreliable, or that could have
been proven by the scribes and lawyers to be false,
they would certainly have done so. The hostility
of the Judaistic section of Christianity to Paul, and
the known opposition of the Jews to the Christians,
are factors that we must take into account in
estimating the probable genuineness of the Gospel
stories. Paul would never have become a party to
anything that was not strictly in accordance with
fact ; the Jews would soon have exposed the fiction
of the Christians had they been able to do so.

We may dismiss in a few sentences the suggestion
that the Gospel writers were themselves deceived,
or that they were engaged portraying an ideal
rather than a real Messiah. This position is taken
up by some writers, only because the one we have
just discussed is found untenable. If it were a case
of self-deception, or idealising of the life of Jesus,
in regard to St. Mark's Gospel who is responsible ?
Admit that it was possible that St. Peter's imagina-
tion ran into excess when he was telling the story,
are we to suppose that the Evangelist's mental
faculties were similarly out of proportion when he
was writing it out ? Or to whom shall we attribute
the power of conceiving the ideal life depicted in
this Gospel the Galilean fisherman^ or Mark his
interpreter ? We are told by some writers that
Peter could not write good Greek. Is it likely, then,
he could have imagined this story told in the Earliest
Gospel ? We fancy he could only be eloquent in
his narration because he was telling facts that had

333

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

come within his own experience. Could Mark, on
the other hand, if left to himself, have given those
autoptic touches so frequently revealed in the
narrative ? It is very improbable. The only ex-
planation which is satisfactory is that he was
describing what Peter saw, and Peter could only
relate the facts so well because he had seen the
incidents actually taking place. Not the most vivid
imagination could evolve from nothing the story
of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and expect to
be believed. It is not the sort of tale that would
suggest itself to any human mind. It would, more-
over, require a good deal of idealising to account
for the appearances of Jesus after He had risen
from the dead. There are things that seem beyond
the power of the mind to conceive, and these are
some of them.

A few paragraphs further back, in writing on the
resurrection of Jesus, we said, " Jesus and His work
Jesus and His death remain." It seems we were
wrong in thus affirming the historical reality of
Jesus of Nazareth. In the Hibbert Journal for
October 1921 there is an article under the name of
Mr. Gilbert T. Saddler reviewing The Life of Christ :
A Short Study, by the Rev. R. J. Campbell, D.D.
Mr. Saddler's review is really an attack on the
historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. Referring to
Dr. Campbell's point that " ' Jesus ' is given in the
Church experience," he says : " Yet this experience
of ' Christ ' by the Church does not give historicity to
the stories in the Gospels." ..." Perhaps there was
no man Jesus. * He ' was the Infinite in the finite."
The Gnostics had discovered the secret. "The
records of symbolic stories of healing, and walking

334

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD"

on the sea of trouble, and raising those dead in sin,
became historised. Yet that process was not effected
by the Church's inner experience of Christ, but by
the lack or dwindling of that experience. As the
vision faded, the symbols of spiritual experience
became misunderstood and historised, and after
A.D. 70 they began to be written as stories of a
man Jesus, who never lived. Jesus (Joshua=
Jehovah as Saviour) originally was the Gnostic man,
the Heavenly Man divine, who was crucified into
the universe, as the pre-Christian Gnostics taught."
But, to use a phrase of the author of these words
applied to Dr. Campbell, " How is all this known
to " Mr. Saddler ? And he writes as positively as
if his feet were firmly placed upon the solid rock
of truth instead of upon the sands of his own
imagination. The Christology of Paul's Epistles is
just the same as that of the Gospels. There is
practically little or no Gnostic influence traceable
in the New Testament, and it is generally accepted
that the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians
are written in opposition to any such tendency.
These were all written before the date mentioned
in Mr. Saddler's review ; and as we have seen from
Harnack, so were the Gospels. We are safe in
asserting there is absolutely no trace of Gnosticism
in the Synoptic Gospels. Mr. Saddler must recog-
nise that these still stand, and they must be disproved
by unquestionable historical evidence before they
can be set aside. What does Mr. Saddler mean
anyhow by the words, " As the vision faded," etc. ?
What vision, of whom, or of what ? So far as we
can gather from the article, there was no real Christ,
no historic Jesus, no spiritual insight, except to the

335

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Gnostics. If there was no reality in the Gospel
story, no Jesus of Nazareth, no moral and spiritual
uplift to be had, therefore, from His life, we fail to
apprehend any vision the Church could have had
which has been lost.

We only seek for this Gospel and the story it
tells the fair and just treatment that every ancient
document should have, viz. that it be examined on
its merits, and that in judging it we should put
out of our minds all prejudice and preconception.
The student who comes to its pages with an open
mind will discover that it is a plain, unvarnished
tale, told in an honest and straightforward manner.
One cannot read the book from end to end without
feeling that the writer rings true at every point.
There is absolutely no straining after effect. No
doubt, as we have seen, there are matters in it
that baffle our powers to understand and explain.
The man of faith will rejoice in these, because to
him they will be attestations of the heavenly
character of the story that is therein told ; the man
who must reduce everything to pure reason may
hesitate and doubt, but he should ponder over the
words of Harnack to his students : " If there is any-
thing here which you find unintelligible, put it
gently aside. Perhaps you will have to leave it
there for ever ; perhaps the meaning will dawn
upon you later, and the story assume a significance
of which you never dreamt." With the evidence
before us, with the body of tradition which has
come down to us from the very earliest centuries,
with references in profane history that had no
relation to Christianity, with the Christian Church
reaching back to apostolic activity, no unbiassed

336

GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD"

and thoughtful man would deny the real existence
of Jesus of Nazareth, nor is anyone in a position to
deny the genuineness and accuracy of His portrait
presented in the Earliest Gospel. We accept it as
such, believing it is a drawing from real life. But
we must take care in our study of this narrative we
do not ourselves emphasise unduly certain features
to the exclusion of others equally important. We
shall receive it with the understanding that it does
not contain an absolutely complete life of our
Saviour, but that it certainly sets out in a distinct
and impressive manner the main facts of His earthly
ministry. No book in the whole realm of literature
has so affected human life as the New Testament.
Many will be ready to believe that its most important
section is to be found in the Gospels. We cannot,
therefore, remain unmoved as we realise that, in
that one which we have been studying, we discover
the very earliest impressions which Jesus made upon
His contemporaries. He is presented to us in
many aspects, but most of them fall into the back-
ground when we enter into that section which
reveals the new Messianic ideal and the spiritual
character of the Kingdom. This very especially
awakens our interest and arrests our attention.
The keynote of this part of the book will be found
in those sublime words in which our Lord enunciated
His mission, " For even the Son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give
his life a ransom for many." The Gospel clearly
shows that this was the supreme purpose of His
life.

Under the guidance of St. Peter and St. Mark,
then, we have travelled with Jesus in Galilee ; we

337 22

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

have been astonished at His works in Capernaum ;
we have prayed with Him on the hillside, and
sympathised with His agony in the Garden ; we
have companied with Him through the valley of
darkness to Calvary ; have sorrowed with His
disciples on account of His calamitous death ; we
have been uplifted by the story of His Transfigura-
tion, and have seen the sun rising in splendour on His
empty tomb ; we have gathered with the company of
the faithful on Olivet, and been amazed by His ascen-
sion into glory ; faith has even opened the heavens,
and our spiritual eyes have beheld Jesus seated at
the right hand of the Majesty on High : in one word,
we have seen a Son of Man become the Son of God
the Saviour of the world through the power of
a holy, perfect, prayerful and obedient life.

338

INDEX

Agony in the Garden, 284.

" All men seek for thee "...

" therefore came I forth,"

117, 118, 124.

Apostolic commission, The, 322.
Differences in Matthew's and

Mark's version, 323 .
Authoritative note in preaching

of Jesus, 114.
Autoptic touches due to St.

Peter, 45.

Baptism of Jesus, 80.

Baptist's testimony to Jesus, 77.

Biblical Antiquities, 48.

Christological significance of

Mark i 1 , 70.
Claim of Jesus to forgive sins,

173-

Coming period of suffering, 278.
Confession at Caesarea Philippi,

219.

Contents of Q, 26, 27.
Critical days for the kingdom,

306.

Crucifixion, The, 297.
Cursing of the fig-tree, 162.

Daughter of Jairus, 148.

Demonology, 137.

Difficulties regarding story of

Transfiguration, 236.
Disciples and the Crucifixion,

303-
Divisions of the Gospel by Mark,

'
Documentary theory regarding

origin of Gospels, 17.

Effect of inspiration on com-
position of Gospels, 14.
" Ephesian Gospel," 13.
Evidential value of miracles, 133.

Faith, 103.

Fundamentals in Mark very
early, 45.

Genuineness of i Peter, 43.
Gospel According to Hebrews, 49.
Gospel by St. Mark and the
Epistle to the Romans,

56.

portraits of Jesus, 10.
Grouping of Gospels, 12.

Harnack's recent books (Luke,
Acts, Date of Acts and
Synoptic Gospels), 51.

dates for Gospels, 51, 57, 58.

What is Christianity ?, 130,

336.

History of Creeds and Confes-
sions (Curtis), 54, 70, 213.

Holdsworth's Gospel Origins, 46.

How Cj has been preserved, 20.

Illegal procedure at the trial of

Jesus, 293.
Influence of O.T. on early

Christian literature, 59.
of Renaissance on Christian

art, 9.
Institution of the Lord's Supper,

282.
Irenseus on Peter's relationship

to Mark's Gospel, 34.

339

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EARLIEST GOSPEL

Jesus as a Man of Power, 66.
as a Man of intense personal

magnetism, 67.
a Man of lovable disposition

and great sympathy, 68.
as an isolated individual, 69.
did not desire to work miracles,

131-

as a Reformer, 247.
loyal to Jewish religion and

temple service, 248, 249.
as an ethical Reformer, 264.
on (i) marriage and divorce,

265.

on (2) summum bonum, 266.
stands apart from politics, 269.
and prophecy, 270.

(1) Regarding future of dis-

ciples, 271.

(2) Regarding future of the

Kingdom, 272.

(3) Regarding future of

Judaism and Jews,

273.

(4) Regarding His second

coming, 275.
takes up the battle-cry of

John the Baptist, 96.
Jewish ideals of Messiah, 203.
Justin Martyr and " Memoirs of
Peter," 34.

Kenotic theory, The, 261, 263.
Kingdom of God is at hand, 97.

Lack of personal details respect-
ing Jesus in the Epistles,

53-

Last picture of Christ the
Ascension, 325.

Manual for preaching, 27, 30, 59.
Mark probably not dependent

upon Q, 31, 32.
used as co-equal in authority

with Q, 32.
Menzies on relation of St. Peter

to the Gospel by St.

Mark, 39.
Messianic conception of Jesus,

212,

Morrison and St. Mark's depend-
ence upon St. Peter, 37.

" Motives of the Formation cif the
Gospel Tradition," 52.

Mr. Saddler and a Historic
Christ, 335.

Mr. Stebbing and miracles, 126,
148.

New note in teaching of Jesus
after Peter's confession,
230.

Object of Synoptists in writing,
61.

Observance of Last Passover,
279.

Oral tradition theory of origin
of Gospels, 15, 16.

Originality of the Christian Mes-
sage (Mackintosh), 258.

Papias' statement regarding
writing of St. Mark's
Gospel, 34, 35.

Parables in St. Mark, 107.

Peter, Paul, and Mark, 40, 43.

Peter's wife's mother healed, 143.

Pictures of Jesus, 9.

" Q "what it is, 18.

Recent contributions to Synoptic
problem, 46.

Relation of Earliest Gospel to
St. Peter, 33. '

Repentance, 100.

Resurrection, The, 308.

reliability of witnesses and

testimony, 311.
differences in detail but agree-
ment in fact, 319.

" Revolution in New Testament
Criticism " (Stalker), 51.

Robinson Smith's dates of Gos-
pels, 49.
Solution of Synoptic Problem,

47-

St. Luke's Preface, 19, 22, 23.

34

INDEX

St. Mark's account of. trial

of Jesus favourable to

Pilate, 296.
Salmon's views as to dependence

of St. Mark on St. Peter,

37,38.

" She in Babylon," 42.
Significance of ev$6Ki)ffa, Mark i 11 ,

85, 122.

" Silences " of Jesus, 108.
Similarities in the Gospels, 13, 14.
Son of David, The, 196.
of God, The, 189.
of Man, The, 177.

not a veiled- designation,

184.

a new import after, 8 s1 , 188.
Stilling the tempest, and walking

on the water, 156.
Swete's views of indebtedness of

St. Mark to St. Peter, 36.

Teaching and preaching of Jesus,

109.
Temptation in the wilderness,

The, 89.
Theology of the Gospels (Moffatt),

33.

Transfiguration the highest
Christological peak, 234,

245-
Trial of Jesus, 290.

Views of our Lord on Sabbath
observance, fasting, and
ceremonial purification,
252.

Voice in the wilderness, The, 75.

Was there a subjective reason
for questions at Caesarea
Philippi ?, 224.

What Peter's confession implied
in case of other disciples,
228.

What was new in doctrine of
Jesus regarding God, 256.

Which is the Earliest Gospel ?,
ii, 18.

Which is the first miracle ?, 135.

Writers of Gospels not self-
deceived, 331.

Written communications re-
garding Jesus probable,
24.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY NEIU. AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.

iSSx*^ s.nJKX *_. f

i 1 9>aB'itf < 'i" i 'iS^1 t ~*

-x

-,* -r^